Road to ruin: mixed signals and the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Abstract Mixed signals by the West (the USA and its NATO allies) provided encouragement for the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The charge that the invasion was a case of failed deterrence thus has some merit. Russia was already predisposed to attack its neighbour but acting on that predisposition was eased by a calculation in Moscow that the chance of Russia being punished for its act of transgression was low. Ambiguous, or mixed, signals are more likely to be discounted than heeded by a potential aggressor. Other than in very circumscribed circumstances (for instance, the conditions that might trigger nuclear use), ambiguity has limited benefit. It suggests a lack of commitment, undermines the credibility of defence alliances and partnerships, and encourages malfeasance. Ultimately, it exposes a vulnerable state to a higher level of danger. These were the features of the road to ruin that led to Russian aggression. The problems of mixed signals have an ongoing relevance to the effectiveness of Western policy when squaring up to Russia over Ukraine and to China in the Asia–Pacific.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Transatlantic Studies
Published
2026-07-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1057/s42738-026-00177-7
Primary Topic
European and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Road to ruin: mixed signals and the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Mark Webber, Michael John Williams, James Sperling
Journal of Transatlantic Studies
European and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies
article

Road to ruin: mixed signals and the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Mark Webber, Michael John Williams, James Sperling
article en

Abstract

Abstract Mixed signals by the West (the USA and its NATO allies) provided encouragement for the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The charge that the invasion was a case of failed deterrence thus has some merit. Russia was already predisposed to attack its neighbour but acting on that predisposition was eased by a calculation in Moscow that the chance of Russia being punished for its act of transgression was low. Ambiguous, or mixed, signals are more likely to be discounted than heeded by a potential aggressor. Other than in very circumscribed circumstances (for instance, the conditions that might trigger nuclear use), ambiguity has limited benefit. It suggests a lack of commitment, undermines the credibility of defence alliances and partnerships, and encourages malfeasance. Ultimately, it exposes a vulnerable state to a higher level of danger. These were the features of the road to ruin that led to Russian aggression. The problems of mixed signals have an ongoing relevance to the effectiveness of Western policy when squaring up to Russia over Ukraine and to China in the Asia–Pacific.

Journal of Transatlantic StudiesVol. 24(1)
University of Akron (US), Syracuse University (US), University of Birmingham (GB)
Partnerships for the goals
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
European and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Road to ruin: mixed signals and the Russian invasion of Ukraine — Mark Webber, Michael John Williams, et al. · Journal of Transatlantic Studies (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS