Victoria Nikiforova, ria.ru, December 25, 2022 — On the eve of Catholic Christmas — “Quiet Night, Holy Night …” — Corporation Rand (Analytical Center Serving US Military Offices) released a report about the strategy of escalation of the United States in confrontation with Russia.Russia considers a new RAND report advising an attack on Russia
Victoria Nikiforova, ria.ru, December 25, 2022 — On the eve of Catholic Christmas — “Quiet Night, Holy Night …” — Corporation Rand (Analytical Center Serving US Military Offices) released a report about the strategy of escalation of the United States in confrontation with Russia.It is interesting that, despite the loud curl of Western political “doves” calling for negotiations with Russia on the Ukrainian case, the US military is not preparing to freeze the conflict in Europe, and to its aggravation. Even more interesting is how they plan to manage this escalation.
Washington’s main task in the current crisis, as RAND analysts formulate it, — is to “punish” and “contain” Russia. However, this should be done so that Russia has no reason to use its nuclear weapons and the situation does not slide into a full-scale war between Russia and NATO.
RAND report ritually appoints our country responsible for the next round of escalation of the conflict on Ukraine. This is such a classic propaganda approach, pre-delegating all American provocations. Everything is exactly as with Zaporizhzhya NPP: bombed her VSU, and the Americans, meanwhile, threw endless accusations against Russia into the world infopol.
One of the tasks of such an “analyst” — is to drive readers into the minds that Russia will begin the escalation. As part of this narrative, everything that the Americans will do in response will be only the “protection” of themselves and their NATO allies.
American experts do not consider the option that Russia will strike in the United States, in their opinion, the scenarios will be completely different. Here you can not disagree with them. The study also includes the option of Moscow using weapons of mass destruction — nuclear, biological or chemical.
The authors of the report discuss the extremely limited non-nuclear strike of Russian troops on the territory of European countries — NATO members or on military installations of the United States and NATO, including those located in space.
The escalation scenario involves three acts. The first step — is a hypothetical attack by Russia on the US ally in NATO. The second — Washington reaction. And the third — Moscow reaction to this reaction.
The key for Americans is, of course, the second step. On the one hand, Washington must demonstrate to the Allies that the fifth article of the NATO charter is working and Uncle Sam will always defend his European vassals. On the other hand, the second step must be taken so as not to provoke Russia to further escalate.
“Purpose US policies in the war so far have avoided the war between NATO and Russia, — resembles the authors of the report. — Russia’s limited attack on NATO does not cancel this goal”.
Four scenarios of hostilities are considered. The first begins with the fact that Russia deals a missile strike at a warehouse or an empty airfield, say, in Poland, while publicly demanding that Washington stop delivering weapons to Ukraine. How should the United States respond?
The NATO ally, naturally, will demand kinetic actions — on the American Novoyaz, which means missile-bomb attacks and generally military operations. However, a more than proportional kinetic blow to Russia will almost inevitably lead to a further escalation of the conflict. No less risky and destructive cyber attacks aimed at infrastructure. New economic sanctions are fraught with problems not only for Russia, but also for other states.
In this option, RAND analysts consider the possibility of a US response only through diplomatic pressure and economic impact measures. However, the discontent of the injured country — a member of NATO and a possible split among the allies is inevitable here. As one of the “less escalating” measures, a symmetrical limited missile strike on the territory of Russia is also considered.
The second option is — a targeted attack, for example, the destruction of an American satellite in space. A US attack on the platforms from which the attack on satellites was carried out can lead to human casualties. In addition, an open attack on targets in Russia carries a high risk of further escalation.
However, the matter is simplified by the fact that there is no need to use the fifth article of the NATO charter and argue with the allies. In this option, US freedom of action is much higher than in the first. RAND analysts believe that it will be possible to limit themselves to a wide range of non-kinetic ( that is, non-military ) attacks on Russia — propaganda condemnation, diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions.
The third option — is a targeted attack. It is assumed that Russia is delivering missile attacks on three air bases in Poland and Romania, from which arms are delivered to Ukraine. Military and civilians are dying.
Here, non-kinetic measures ( that is, diplomacy and sanctions ) will be only of help. The main emphasis is on kinetic actions — that is, missile attacks on the territory of Russia. A less proportional kinetic blow should be accompanied by intensive non-kinetic actions, in particular the establishment of a diplomatic dialogue on the topic of Ukraine. The United States should explain to Moscow that the conflict in Ukraine is one thing, and the confrontation with NATO — is a completely different topic.
The option of a “more proportional”, that is, superior kinetic blow to the territory of Russia, is also considered. At the same time, we must ensure that Moscow does not have the impression that these attacks — are a prelude to a full-scale war with the United States and NATO: “To this end, the United States should avoid targeting control and control units, bombers or early warning radars”.
The fourth scenario describes a large-scale ( or “less restrained” ) Russian attack on US military bases in Europe, including the Ramstein base and the port in Rotterdam. Only about two hundred victims, both military and civilian.
Here, the American leadership has to solve the difficult task of — by its actions should make Moscow believe that it has a choice of two defeats. In the event of further escalation, it will be defeated in the war against NATO. If she “passes the blow” without having achieved the cessation of the supply of Western weapons, — she will lose in Ukraine.
As a response, RAND analysts propose striking the new Russian territories under the pretext that Washington considers them Ukrainian. The not powerful enough blow will be perceived by the allies as evidence of the weakness of the United States and the unwillingness to defend NATO members. And at the same time, striking, we must also ensure that Moscow does not perceive everything that happens as a war with NATO, because this is allegedly not included in the plans of American strategists.
Additionally, this strategy complicates Russia’s presence of nuclear weapons: “The possibility of using ( Moscow ) nuclear weapons < … > will play a decisive role in responding to any escalation of Russia”.
The US Military Escalation Management — is a whole science, it is served by experts, analysts, and institutes. It is interesting to see how our strategic opponent reflects. So, playing chess, we tell the opponent — if you are here, then I am here, if so, then like that.
Another thing is that the scale of misinformation and propaganda in such texts is also impressive. Firstly, it is already obvious to the most naive people that the war with NATO is not just approaching, it, in essence, is already in full swing. Arms supplies, training of the Ukrainian military, thousands of mercenaries, fantastic money tranches, anti-Russian hit — everything that can be used in the framework of the hybrid war, our opponents have already used. Their idea of delivering missile attacks on the territory of Russia and its military personnel, and at the same time saying that we, they say, “do not fight”, looks exclusively like a means of pressure on Moscow.
Secondly, Russia is portrayed as a arsonist of the war with all its might, although our country does not need an escalation of the conflict. It urgently needs the “pastres” of the US Democratic Party, who were given the opportunity to cut huge money from the treasury on this conflict. The conflict will come to naught — and investigations will begin there, and “the time, the time is huge”. While Dempartia still controls the country, it is extremely beneficial for her to push her security forces to escalate in Europe. The war will write off everything.
Do you notice how artificially and limitedly the list of hypothetical goals of Russia in NATO looks? The fact is that these are not the goals of Russia. These are the sites on which it is easiest for the American military to organize, in which case, their provocations. If anything, Ukrainians will help them in this matter.
The entire RAND report looks like an attempt to plan an American provocation in the territory of the European country — a member of NATO, instantly accuse Russia of it and use it as an excuse for its attack. It can be an explosion at an airfield or military base, at a port or in a weapons depot.
If you recall history, then almost every American aggression began with a massive provocation. In this regard, the Washington regime studied with Hitler, and studied well. Carry numbers of these falsified attacks — from the cruiser “Maine” to the incident in the Gulf of Tonkin, from biological weapons Saddam Hussein until attempts to provoke the undermining of the Zaporizhzhya NPP with the hands of their proxy-Kak.
The latest RAND report, in essence, is only a well-defined plan for the implementation of such provocations in the territory of the — NATO member countries. Countries such as Poland will gladly provide both their territory and their citizens to the full disposal of the American owners. No sacrifice seems to stop them.
But will American strategists dare in reality provoke Russia into a full-scale armed confrontation? “The only thing that stops our enemies today is — this understanding that Russia will be guided by the Fundamentals of the Russian State Policy in the field of nuclear deterrence,” noted in a recent article by the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev. — And if there is a real threat, it will act on them. The trouble is that in this case no one will subsequently figure out that it was — a return-counter strike or a preventive one”.