Military escalation is a complex, dynamic process that involves a wide range of forces working and interacting to escalate a conflict. Escalation is neither automatic nor inevitable, and can be a useful way to deter aggression and defeat an adversary without the need for a protracted conflict that would cost more in terms of civilian casualties, property damage, and diplomatic relations.
But the first impulse of many national security professionals is to seek de-escalation. This is not surprising, because escalation can have immediate, damaging effects on the battlefield that are felt almost immediately. For example, the injection of more troops, guns, and tanks into a battle normally produces more casualties. Other escalatory actions may have longer-term effects that are less visible. For instance, launching a new weapons development program or initiating unrestricted submarine warfare may not have direct battlefield effects but can still increase the threat of a war that could have profound implications for international stability and regional balances.
A year after Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, the United States is facing an important challenge to manage escalation in a conflict that threatens global stability. Deterring Russia and China requires a credible military capability and the willingness to use it, a commitment that is much easier to make when a treaty obligation exists.
Thomas Schelling’s seminal work on managing escalation suggests a strategy that involves “the threat that leaves something to chance.” This is a strategic approach that has been broadly successful in managing escalation throughout history, including during the Cold War, when it proved effective against nuclear threats and conventional mobilization. In fact, it is the strategy that President Joe Biden has employed in gradually broadening military assistance to Ukraine and sanctions on Russia despite Russian manipulation of risk.