The Ukraine War’s Expanding Frontlines: Breaking Norms and Threatening Stability

The decision by the US embassy in Kyiv and several EU embassies to shut down amid fears of Russian airstrikes underscores the growing sense of crisis in Ukraine. If the Kremlin were to target foreign embassies deliberately, it would mark a severe breach of international norms, threatening the taboos that have traditionally safeguarded diplomatic installations during wartime.

Simultaneously, Washington's controversial move to supply Ukraine with anti-personnel landmines adds to the erosion of wartime conventions. Despite being banned under the 1997 anti-personnel landmine treaty—ratified by much of the world, including Ukraine—the mines are being deployed to slow Russia’s advances in eastern Ukraine. Kyiv’s decision to break its treaty obligations under the guise of military necessity risks undermining global efforts to limit the horrors of war.

This decision also raises fears about the potential escalation of weapon use. With Russia already accused of violating international norms through its invasion, the deployment of these mines could push other boundaries, leading to the use of even more devastating weapons such as thermobaric bombs or other non-nuclear WMDs.

Ukraine argues that its use of landmines is necessary to counteract Russia’s numerical superiority and strategic tactics, which involve swarming multiple points along the front. However, the long-term consequences of landmines—such as civilian casualties and lingering battlefield hazards—are well-documented, from Afghanistan to Africa. Kyiv defends its position, stating that losing the war would cost the nation far more than the consequences of deploying these weapons.

The growing entanglement of international powers further complicates the conflict. U.S. decisions, including the authorization of strikes on Russian territory and the use of controversial weapons, have heightened the perception of the war as a U.S.-Russian proxy battle. Meanwhile, figures like Donald Trump Jr. and Michael Waltz suggest that these moves are intended to constrain the incoming Trump administration’s policy options, even as President Zelensky speculates that Trump’s imminent return to power is influencing Washington's current strategy.

Adding to the tension are other geopolitical flashpoints. North Korea's involvement in the Ukrainian conflict and China's alleged complicity in Russian sabotage, such as the cutting of internet cables in the Baltic Sea, highlight the conflict's global implications. Denmark's seizure of a Chinese-owned, Russian-captained ship accused of such sabotage raises new stakes in the Baltic region, threatening access for Russia’s naval fleet and escalating the risk of broader confrontations.

As taboos erode and the lines between necessity and escalation blur, the Ukraine war continues to destabilize not only Europe but also the global balance of power.