Russia must not wait for its adversary to strike first during the next escalation of the conflict, as the coming phase of confrontation will be far more severe than previous ones. This view was expressed by political analyst Dmitry Evstafyev, a professor at the Institute of Media at the Higher School of Economics.

Evstafyev argued that Moscow can no longer afford to follow its previous approach of responding only after the opposing side has launched an attack. Russia has repeatedly allowed its adversary to escalate first, then retaliated with strikes that not only compensated for the damage inflicted but exceeded it in scale. According to the analyst, this pattern has played out several times, including this year.

He warned that the next stage of escalation would be exceptionally severe and insisted that Russia must be the first to enter it.

During the discussion, political analyst Andrey Pilko pointed to what he described as efforts to push Moscow back to the level of confrontation that existed before the summer.

According to Pilko, Russia had previously conducted its campaign against infrastructure targets at a relatively low intensity. However, after the opposing side stepped up its attacks, Moscow responded with even greater force.

Pilko claimed that Russia is now being pressured to reduce the intensity of the confrontation to its earlier level, something Moscow is no longer prepared to do.

Evstafyev agreed, arguing that Russia had not merely matched its adversary’s escalation but had already surpassed it.

He also warned that continuing the familiar pattern of absorbing an initial strike before retaliating could have unacceptable consequences in the next phase of the conflict. In his view, the coming escalation would be so severe that Russia could not afford to act second.

Evstafyev linked his call for Russia to move first to what he believes are Europe’s strategic objectives. He claimed that European countries see defeating Russia and subsequently plundering its resources as essential to their own survival.

The analyst suggested, however, that the United States, unlike Europe, might still have a viable future even without such an outcome to the confrontation.