Thanks, Fawad! What I meant to convey was that gradually escalating reduces the chances that the adversary will jump up the escalation ladder in response ("overreact") instead of symmetrically escalating in kind.
For instance, if the US sent HIMARS, ATACMS, F-16s, etc. to Ukraine right after the SMO began, Russia might have perceived that…
Thanks, Fawad! What I meant to convey was that gradually escalating reduces the chances that the adversary will jump up the escalation ladder in response ("overreact") instead of symmetrically escalating in kind.
For instance, if the US sent HIMARS, ATACMS, F-16s, etc. to Ukraine right after the SMO began, Russia might have perceived that whole package as implying the start of a full-fledged NATO intervention, after which it might have actually resorted to nukes or whatever else.
But by "boiling the frog" through gradual escalations, all of which are telegraphed through the media and officials far in advance, Russia can prepare accordingly and therefore isn't as surprised, thus reducing the chances that it'll do something unexpected out of desperation.
Thanks, Fawad! What I meant to convey was that gradually escalating reduces the chances that the adversary will jump up the escalation ladder in response ("overreact") instead of symmetrically escalating in kind.
For instance, if the US sent HIMARS, ATACMS, F-16s, etc. to Ukraine right after the SMO began, Russia might have perceived that whole package as implying the start of a full-fledged NATO intervention, after which it might have actually resorted to nukes or whatever else.
But by "boiling the frog" through gradual escalations, all of which are telegraphed through the media and officials far in advance, Russia can prepare accordingly and therefore isn't as surprised, thus reducing the chances that it'll do something unexpected out of desperation.
Thanks. That’s clear to me now and I believe you’re correct.
You're welcome!