Scott Ritter: What War With Russia Would Look Like
Posted by Ken Waldron on January 10, 2022, 9:06 pm
-Course the US doesn't give a shit because the consequences are all on Europe and not the US, which will in fact make a bundle shipping its expensive fracked gas if Ivan turns the tap off.
What War With Russia Would Look Like January 10, 2022 Scott Ritter
Wendy Sherman thinks her aim in talks with Russian officials starting Monday is to lecture them on the cost of hubris. Instead she’s set to lead the U.S., NATO, and Europe down a path of ruin, warns Scott Ritter.
If ever a critical diplomatic negotiation was doomed to fail from the start, the discussions between the U.S. and Russia over Ukraine and Russian security guarantees is it.
The two sides can’t even agree on an agenda.
From the Russian perspective, the situation is clear: “The Russian side came here [to Geneva] with a clear position that contains a number of elements that, to my mind, are understandable and have been so clearly formulated—including at a high level—that deviating from our approaches simply is not possible,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told the press after a pre-meeting dinner on Sunday hosted by U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, who is leading the U.S. delegation.
Ryabkov was referring Russian President Vladimir Putin’s demands to U.S. President Joe Biden in early December regarding Russian security guarantees, which were then laid out by Moscow in detail in the form of two draft treaties, one a Russian-U.S. security treaty, the other a security agreement between Russia and NATO.
The latter would bar Ukraine from joining NATO and rule out any eastward expansion by the trans-Atlantic military alliance. At the time, Ryabkov tersely noted that the U.S. should immediately begin to address the proposed drafts with an eye to finalizing something when the two sides meet. Now, with the meeting beginning on Monday, it doesn’t appear as if the U.S. has done any such thing.
“[T]he talks are going to be difficult,” Ryabkov told reporters after the dinner meeting. “They cannot be easy. They will be business-like. I think we won’t waste our time tomorrow.” When asked if Russia was ready to compromise, Ryabkov tersely responded, “The Americans should get ready to reach a compromise.”
All the U.S. has been willing to do, it seems, is to remind Russia of so-called “serious consequences” should Russia invade Ukraine, something the U.S. and NATO fear is imminent, given the scope and scale of recent Russian military exercises in the region involving tens of thousands of troops. This threat was made by Biden to Putin on several occasions, including a phone call initiated by Putin last week to help frame the upcoming talks.
Yet on the eve of the Ryabkov-Sherman meeting, U.S. Secretary of State Tony Blinken simply reiterated these threats, declaring that Russia would face “massive consequences” if it invaded Ukraine.
“It’s clear that we’ve offered him two paths forward,” Blinken said, speaking of Putin. “One is through diplomacy and dialogue; the other is through deterrence and massive consequences for Russia if it renews its aggression against Ukraine. And we’re about to test the proposition of which path President Putin wants to take this week.”
Lessons of History
It is as if both Biden and Blinken are deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to reading Russia.
Ryabkov has alluded to a fact already made clear by the Russians—there will be no compromise when it comes to Russia’s legitimate national security interests. And if the U.S. cannot understand how the accumulation of military power encompassed in a military alliance which views Russia as a singular, existential threat to its members’ security is seen by Russia as threatening, then there is no comprehension of how the events of June 22, 1941 have shaped the present -day Russian psyche, why Russia will never again allow such a situation to occur, and why the talks are doomed before they even begin.
As for the American threats, Russia has given its response—any effort to sanction Russia would result, as Putin told Biden last month, in a “complete rupture of relations” between Russia and those countries attempting sanctions. One need not be a student of history to comprehend that the next logical step following a “complete rupture of relations” between two parties that are at loggerheads over matters pertaining to existential threats to the national security of one or both is not the peaceful resumption of relations, but war.
There is no mealy-mouthed posturing by Foggy Bottom peacocks taking place in Moscow, but rather a cold, hard, statement of fact—ignore Russia’s demands at you own peril. The U.S., it seems, believes that the worst-case scenario is one where Russia invades Ukraine, only to wilt under the sustained pressure of economic sanctions and military threats.
Russia’s worse-case scenario is one where it engages in armed conflict with NATO.
Generally speaking, the side that is most prepared for the reality of armed conflict will prevail.
Russia has been preparing for this possibility for more than a year. It has repeatedly shown a capability to rapidly mobilize 100,000-plus combat-ready forces in short order. NATO has shown an ability to mobilize 30,000 after six-to-nine-months of extensive preparations.
The Shape of War
What would a conflict between Russia and NATO look like? In short, not like anything NATO has prepared for. Time is the friend of NATO in any such conflict—time to let sanctions weaken the Russian economy, and time to allow NATO to build up sufficient military power to be able to match Russia’s conventional military strength.
Russia knows this, and as such, any Russian move will be designed to be both swift and decisive.
First and foremost, if it comes to it, when Russia decides to move on Ukraine, it will do so with a plan of action that has been well-thought out and which sufficient resources have been allocated for its successful completion. Russia will not get involved in a military misadventure in Ukraine that has the potential of dragging on and on, like the U.S. experience in Afghanistan and Iraq. Russia has studied an earlier U.S. military campaign—Operation Desert Storm, of Gulf War I—and has taken to heart the lessons of that conflict.
One does not need to occupy the territory of a foe in order to destroy it. A strategic air campaign designed to nullify specific aspects of a nations’ capability, whether it be economic, political, military, or all the above, coupled with a focused ground campaign designed to destroy an enemy’s army as opposed to occupy its territory, is the likely course of action.
Given the overwhelming supremacy Russia has both in terms of the ability to project air power backed by precision missile attacks, a strategic air campaign against Ukraine would accomplish in days what the U.S. took more than a month to do against Iraq in 1991.
On the ground, the destruction of Ukraine’s Army is all but guaranteed. Simply put, the Ukrainian military is neither equipped nor trained to engage in large-scale ground combat. It would be destroyed piecemeal, and the Russians would more than likely spend more time processing Ukrainian prisoners of war than killing Ukrainian defenders.
For any Russian military campaign against Ukraine to be effective in a larger conflict with NATO, however, two things must occur—Ukraine must cease to exist as a modern nation state, and the defeat of the Ukrainian military must be massively one-sided and quick. If Russia is able to accomplish these two objectives, then it is well positioned to move on to the next phase of its overall strategic posturing vis-à-vis NATO—intimidation.
While the U.S., NATO, the EU, and the G7 have all promised “unprecedented sanctions,” sanctions only matter if the other side cares. Russia, by rupturing relations with the West, no longer would care about sanctions. Moreover, it is a simple acknowledgement of reality that Russia can survive being blocked from SWIFT transactions longer than Europe can survive without Russian energy. Any rupturing of relations between Russia and the West will result in the complete embargoing of Russian gas and oil to European customers.
There is no European Plan B. Europe will suffer, and because Europe is composed of erstwhile democracies, politicians will pay the price. All those politicians who followed the U.S. blindly into a confrontation with Russia will now have to answer to their respective constituents why they committed economic suicide on behalf of a Nazi-worshipping, thoroughly corrupt nation (Ukraine) which has nothing in common with the rest of Europe. It will be a short conversation.
NATO’s Fix
If the U.S. tries to build up NATO forces on Russia’s western frontiers in the aftermath of any Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russia will then present Europe with a fait accompli in the form of what would now be known as the “Ukrainian model.” In short, Russia will guarantee that the Ukrainian treatment will be applied to the Baltics, Poland, and even Finland, should it be foolish enough to pursue NATO membership.
Russia won’t wait until the U.S. has had time to accumulate sufficient military power, either. Russia will simply destroy the offending party through the combination of an air campaign designed to degrade the economic function of the targeted nation, and a ground campaign designed to annihilate the ability to wage war. Russia does not need to occupy the territory of NATO for any lengthy period—just enough to destroy whatever military power has been accumulated by NATO near its borders.
And—here’s the kicker—short of employing nuclear weapons, there’s nothing NATO can do to prevent this outcome. Militarily, NATO is but a shadow of its former self. The once great armies of Europe have had to cannibalize their combat formations to assemble battalion-sized “combat groups” in the Baltics and Poland. Russia, on the other hand, has reconstituted two army-size formations—the 1st Guards Tank Army and the 20th Combined Arms Army—from the Cold War-era which specialize in deep offensive military action.
Even Vegas wouldn’t offer odds on this one.
Sherman will face off against Ryabkov in Geneva, with the fate of Europe in her hands. The sad thing is, she doesn’t see it that way. Thanks to Biden, Blinken and the host of Russophobes who populate the U.S. national security state today, Sherman thinks she is there to simply communicate the consequences of diplomatic failure to Russia. To threaten. With mere words.
What Sherman, Biden, Blinken, and the others have yet to comprehend is that Russia has already weighed the consequences and is apparently willing to accept them. And respond. With action.
One wonders if Sherman, Biden, Blinken, and the others have thought this through. Odds are, they have not, and the consequences for Europe will be dire.
"... to remind Russia of so-called “serious consequences” should Russia invade Ukraine, something the U.S. and NATO fear is imminent..."
Always the same in empire-serving narrative. The Americans 'believe' -- because it's actually what they say -- while the Iranians 'claim' -- because it's merely what they say.
It strikes me that Russia could bluff about military peril and NATO.
After the Geneva talks, they could simply withdraw from swift, close their borders to western carriers, dump any remaining debt, close their airspace to western carriers then adopt a defensive military stance, because they CAN defend themselves militarily, but the west probably CANNOT defend itself economically.
It strikes me that Putin may have a list of options in front of him along the lines of the above, the west may know about them, but which options he will pick from the list and which he will not, will be information that is inside his brain only.
This seems the most rational approach to me.
Militarily, I am not sure what he can do that would not simply feed the beast. Surround the US with nuclear subs? Nobody knows where they are anyway.
Smarter still, perhaps, the current talks are aimed to avoid further talks when Russia acts to rack up the economic pain.
In other words, the aim, here, is NOT to talk after Russia acts.
NATO was chosen as a topic because it is the one on which the west is most implacably against compromise.
- Shyaku.
Re: Smarter still ..
Posted by Tomski on January 12, 2022, 9:55 pm, in reply to "Smarter still .."
I understand you are laying out a smorgasbord of options available to Russians:
.. adopt a defensive military stance, because they CAN defend themselves militarily ..
Surely this would be very dangerous for Russia. For one, within (say) few years the US will develop hypersonics (if North Korea can etc.) and it would be a few minutes flight for missiles to reach Moscow (say). Also swarming of missiles may be the tactics adopted by NATO, so something is likely to get through. Why risk it, with the only other option being WW3?
.. but the west probably CANNOT defend itself economically.
What does west get from Russia?: hydrocarbons i.e. oil and gas, possibly wheat, some metals. The markets will re-adjust, still plenty of oil and gas from ME in the short term. As for Europe, it will suffer for a spell and US will be ready to sell their fracking gas until they build new pipelines. Bit expensive but hey …
Russia will be stymied in trading with the rest of the world since Russian carriers may then be curtailed from flying over territories that are controlled by the west, which is not very efficient i.e. economic, and the main trading partner for Russia would then be only China. Etc.
Just testing your theory ..
Re: Smarter still ..
Posted by Tomski on January 13, 2022, 4:13 pm, in reply to "Re: Smarter still .."
… Second, according to this [US] bill, this would trigger sanctions making the trade of Russia with the West impractical. That would force Russia to conclude military cooperation with Iran and threaten to close Hormuz until all unjust sanctions (i.e. those not approved by UN) are dropped, and with no relief on that, indeed make such closure affecting all cargoes going to countries cooperating with American sanctions. At that point, countries interested in importing oil, natural gas, nitrogen fertilizers etc. would have to declare if they cooperate with those sanctions or not.
I mean, either the sanctions spelled out with somewhat obscure references to other acts, presumably like those that govern sanctions on Syria and Venezuela, are as harsh as the latter, or otherwise "sufficiently harsh", international trade will degenerate into exchange of blackmails and piracy (taking others' property by executive decree). 2022 is a year that starts with shortages of many raw materials, first, energy, second, metals, and coming soon, food (energy prices and calamities in USA knocked out a big part of fertilizers production, the only stock of fertilizers that has no overt claimers are Russian fertilizers probably promised to India. And now imagine that Russia controls Ukrainian agricultural exports too.
EU would survive OK, reducing heating to minimum and switching to vegetarian diet, but in countries like Egypt, joining sanctions would lead to food riots. Thermophiliacs and carnivores of Europe may revolt too.
-----
I want to stress that this is a CONDITIONAL scenario. Cooler heads in Washington already lament that sanctions being assembled have huge blowback, most direct in Europe. As USA tries to bludgeon Russia, Iran and China to submission in the same time, and it is a year of commodity shortage that makes Russia stronger, and Russia + Iran becoming an invincible superpower if they unite for the occasion, it just makes too much sense for the countries on the receiving end of American blackmails to unite and retaliate. That said, some lecturing will come first ....
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jan 13 2022 3:14 utc | 151
Re: Smarter still ..
Posted by Shyaku on January 14, 2022, 6:28 am, in reply to "Re: Smarter still .."
I don’t think Russia is in the business of offensive military operations. This is not a new concept.
MoA comments are always excellent to consider the pros and cons of, but I have had to forego them for time reasons for the past few months and am still catching up with MoA main articles from October.
Best regards, Shyaku
Re: Smarter still ..
Posted by Shyaku on January 14, 2022, 6:26 am, in reply to "Re: Smarter still .."
I think that, geopolitically, each side is trying to outflank the other based on current realities.
The US wants war while they still have the petrodollar to fund an offensive military to continue to grab resources.
Russia wants to put a left-hook into the US economy/petrodollar system while parrying via their military capabilities (their ability to defend themselves).
These are current realities. As you say, future realities could be different, and probably involve a race between Russian anti-hypersonic defenses and US development of hypersonics. Both sides will be looking at that timeframe, 3 - 8 years in the future. That is the nature of an arms race. But Russia is leveraging current realities right now to try to persuade the US to back off right now.
on January 10, 2022, 9:06 pm