UKRAINE – Is the West adopting the “Madman Strategy” or does it really intend to intervene in the conflict?

n recent days, increasingly contradictory statements have been made by the West: on the one hand, there is talk of peace, on the other, a growing escalation of the conflict in Ukraine is being fueled. This ambiguity does not only concern the current administrations in office, but also extends to the future government team in the United States.

The Trump administration itself, still in formation, is sending mixed signals. On the one hand, Trump has based much of his campaign on a promise to restore peace in Ukraine; on the other, he has not expressed any position on the Biden administration’s authorization to use long-range missiles on Russian territory, a decision that signals a potential critical escalation.

Unless this very ambiguity is part of a deliberate strategy: to create the impression that the “vessel” is being steered by madmen. Why? Because madness, when combined with the control of an immense arsenal of destruction, inspires fear. It is a dynamic that we have already observed with Western behavior in the recent events in Gaza and Lebanon, where they acted with brutal determination, without hesitation.

To better understand this possibility, it is useful to refer to the reading proposed by the journalist Umberto Pascali . During an episode of Casa del Sole TV , Pascali, correspondent from the United States, described this attitude as a modern application of the “Madman Strategy” , or strategy of the “madman”.

According to Pascali, the current strategy of the United States towards Russia takes up the same methodology adopted during the Vietnam War. In that context, the United States, now in difficulty in the conflict, tried to convince Russia to intervene directly in Vietnam to facilitate an American exit. Pascali points out that this tactic was not new: a similar version had already been tested during the Korean War.

The “Madman Strategy” is based on convincing the enemy that their behavior is so irrational and unpredictable that it can lead to extreme consequences. This disorients the adversary, intimidates him and pushes him to make more cautious moves or even to retreat. In this case, the goal could be to push Russia to reconsider its moves or to induce it to fear a direct confrontation with a West apparently willing to do anything.

This strategy, which plays on psychological intimidation and the illusion of out-of-control behavior, seems to be finding new applications today in the context of the Ukrainian conflict.

The Madman Strategy is a foreign policy tactic attributed to U.S. President Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War, but with potential relevance to current dynamics with Russia. This strategy is based on the idea of ​​convincing enemies (and even allies) that the leader of a state is irrational and unpredictable to the point of being willing to make extremely dangerous decisions, even against his own interest, such as the use of nuclear weapons.

So the West today seems to be faced with two options: either it has underestimated Russia’s resolve, or it is deliberately trying to drag it into a trap . This scenario could force Moscow to respond with a non-nuclear retaliatory strike against NATO , opening the way to several potential developments:

1. Limited and controlled retaliation
   Russia could carry out a single non-nuclear retaliatory strike, followed by a carefully managed NATO response to limit the damage. However, such a balance would be fragile: the risk of a second Russian retaliation is high, which could trigger a slow escalation. This type of confrontation, likely limited to the European theater, would have devastating consequences for the continent.
2. NATO’s Attacks Expanded
   NATO may decide to use the opportunity to launch attacks from Polish or Romanian territory against Russian Armed Forces positions in Ukraine. This would be yet another crossing of a “red line” by the West, whether provoked by Moscow or not, and would inevitably lead to a Russian response, increasing the risk of escalation.
3. Gradual NATO involvement
   Another possible scenario sees a gradual escalation of NATO operations, starting with the interception of Russian missiles over Ukrainian territory by Poland or Romania, followed by an increase in these interceptions, followed by limited NATO aviation operations in Ukrainian airspace. This gradual involvement could culminate in Tomahawk missile strikes on Russian territory, marking a point of no return in the crisis.

The role of the United States in the escalation

As is already the case, the degree of escalation will largely depend on the United States. The underlying logic remains that of an indirect conflict between Moscow and Washington, with Ukraine being the main theater of confrontation. However, direct NATO involvement would dramatically shift the conflict to a more dangerous and uncontrollable dimension, where every step forward risks approaching the edge of global confrontation.