If Putin decides to go to war what options does he have? To empirically analyse these options let us take a look at past precedents – namely the invasion of Georgia in 2008 and the capture of Crimea in 2014.

Georgia 2008. The CIA had started its series of colour revolutions In Eastern Europe to spread democracy. Under that pretext anti-Russian regimes were being installed on the Russian borders. Putin was elected in Russia in year 1999. In 2003, a pro-West President Shaakashvilli took power in Georgia. Georgian territory posed serious threat to Russian Muslim underbelly of Chechenya. In April 2008, at the Bucharest Summit, it was announced that NATO would welcome inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine. This was a clear Russian red line. Russia began massing troops on the borders of Georgia. It encouraged Russian separatists in Abkhazia and Ossetia to intensify their actions. Russian separatists in Osettia began to shell Georgian villages. Georgia now made the mistake of launching ground assaults in Osettia and captured the separatist stronghold of Takshanvali. This was the precise pretext the Russians were looking for. Their troops were in position and, on 8 August, they launched a massive counterattack. It began with a major cyber attack and electronic warfare operations to jam communications. The Russian 58th Army attacked across the mountains via the Roki tunnel and cleared all of Osettia and took some more territory ahead. Concurrently, the Russian Black Sea fleet blockaded the coast of Georgia and Russian troops made amphibious landings in Abkhazia. They quickly moved inland and cleared the whole of Abhkazia. They moved beyond that province and seized the cities of Zugdidi, Senaki, Poti and Gori. By 12th August, it was all over and the French negotiated a ceasefire. Russia recognized Osettia and Abhkazia as independent states. They vacated all other Georgian territory. This was the first war in Europe in the 21st century.

Ukraine 2014 – The Capture of Crimea. US persisted with its colour revolutions. In February 2014, as part of the Orange Revolution the pro-Russian President Yankovich of Ukraine was deposed and fled to Russia. His successor once again began to talk of joining NATO. Russia saw a clear violation of its red line in Ukraine. Russian forces were already in the leased naval base of Sevastapole. On 28 February, Russian troops moved in swiftly and occupied the whole of Crimea without a shot being fired. They held a referendum and, by 18 March, had simply incorporated Crimea into Russia. Concurrently, they backed Russian separatists in Donbas region and instigated revolts in the Oblasts of Dontsk and Luhansk. A number of Russian troops in civil clothes but with heavy weapons also moved into these rebel provinces, almost like a repeat of Georgia. What was noteworthy was the speed and decisive nature of this operation. Russia had clearly asserted its red lines in Ukraine and enforced them in a swift coup de main operation. The US and NATO could do nothing.

The Current Crisis

The current crisis stems from Putin’s determination to make the altered military realities count on ground in Europe. As Prof Meershimer says, Putin is seeking to change the entire post Cold War security architecture in Europe and enforce a Monroe doctrine variant. He is seeking written guarantees for non-inclusion of Ukraine in NATO and assurances about non-stationing of offensive weapons in the countries drafted into NATOin the last two decades. Towards this end, he has forward deployed some 1,90,000 troops around Ukraine. Next, he went ahead and recognized the breakaway provinces of Dontesk and Luhansk in a clear escalatory move that underlines his determination. But, were Dontesk and Luhansk his red lines? What are his military options in case diplomacy fails to deliver on what he had demanded? US and NATO have already refused to give written assurances and asserted that Ukraine as a sovereign state has the right to choose its form of government and what treaties it will join.

This amounts to a deadlock and, if talks break down, what will a military invasion of Ukraine look like? There are primarily three options:-

Georgia Redux. The Ukraine scenario today is remarkably similar to the situation in Georgia in 2008. Like Abkhazia and Osetta, the two Russian speaking states of Dontesk and Luhansk have separatists in full scale revolt. Russia has also sent in its troops in muftis inside. Firing incidents have started on the borders of these two provinces. Russia has already recognized their independence and troops have started moving in. In this option Russian troops would move beyond the Line of Contact to the border of these provinces. So a Georgian redux style operation could see occupation of and  escalation in these two  districts . While troops from Donbas are engaging Ukranian troops on the border frontally, Russian forces from Crimea would hit them in the rear. This would consolidate occupation of these two provinces and certain other territories to give tactical depth to these states.

Limited War Option. What next will depend on what Ukraine does militarily. Any military response would provide the pretext/justification of what would follow next. There are two option limited war or full scale offensive. Limited war would see Russian forces from the East making a dash for Kharkiev (former capital of Ukraine). Forces from Crimea would advance upon the port city of Mariopole. Naval landings could be mounted to seize the port city of Odessa. Thus, Ukraine would be cut off from the sea and become a landlocked country dependant on Russia. This option entails fighting in built-up areas to secure cities and capturing and holding ground. This can cause heavy casualties and take a lot of time as cities can be defended street by street.

Fullscale War Option. Prof Meershimer, noted political scientist of the University of Chicago, feels that Russia will not aim to seize and defend territory in Ukraine (as it could get bogged down in an Afghanistan like quagmire). The Russian aim would be simply to wreck Ukraine as a functional state. Towards this end, this could unfold with massive cyber attacks and electronic warfare strikes to paralyse communications. The Russians would rapidly gain air and naval supremacy and commence operations with massive air strikes, cruise missile and tactical ballistic missile strikes. Massive artillery suppressive fires will be used to destroy anti-tank missile and shoulder-fired SAMs. The main attack will come from Belarus and aim straight for Kiev – the capital city. Key command and control centres (presidential palace, Ministry of Defence and Interior, Parliament, etc) would be knocked out. Concurrently, forces from the East would go for Kharkiev and the breakaway provinces of Dontesk and Luhansk. Naval landings would seek to seize the port cities of Odessa and Mariopol. It would be a swift blitzkrieg style operation that will encircle and bypass major centres of resistance and inflict heavy damage by air and missile strikes and heavy fire assaults. The aim would be not to capture and hold Ukranian territory but wreck Ukraine as a functional state. The operation should not last more than one week. At the end of it Russians could declare a unilateral cease fire and withdraw from most of Ukranian territory less the districts of Dontesk and Luhansk, which will now be independent states.

So which option will Russia take? One view is that since whichever option is adopted US and West will impose economic sanctions- Russia might prefer a massive Full scale option to impose regime change in Kiev. That would highlight Russian military power and capacity and would deter any further adventurism against Russia . West has Imposed only the first tranche of graded sanctions yet  and is waiting to see the option Russia will take finally. Will Russia be satisfied with just the breakway provinces of Dontesk and Luhansk (which were never its stated) red lines? Or will it go for limited or full scale invasion? it all depends on  the risk taking  appetite of Putin.

Western Options – Need for a Strategic Response

So far, Western nations have stated that crippling economic sanctions would be imposed and have rushed token forces to other East European states that have earlier joined NATO. Economic sanctions could include:-

•  Close Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. This incidentally would cause enormous economic losses to Germany also.

•  Impose blocking sanctions on large Russian banks, energy and defence companies and energy projects.

•  Sanctions on Russian Oligarchs and their families.

•  Impose restrictions on secondary markets in Russian bonds.

•  Exclude Russia from Swift global electronic payment system based in Belgium. This would be a last resort option.

Strategic Response

Writing in the 11 February issue of the Foreign Affairs magazine, Michael McFaul has made the eminently reasonable suggestion that USA should not respond knee jerk and tactically by offering defensively minimal concessions to stave off the crisis. Instead, President Biden should seize the diplomatic initiative with a grand strategic and comprehensive bargain for enhancing European security. This would be analogous to the Helsinki Accord of 1975. This would resuscitate and amend defunct arms control agreements and provide the bigger framework of European security of which Ukraine per se, would only be a sub set. USA has low strategic stakes in Ukraine and is playing a losing hand.

A number of respected American pundits of geopolitics (to include Henry Kissinger, Prof Meershimer and Stephen P Cohen) have been advising America to not drive Russia into Chinese arms and not take on these two major powers together. In fact, Kissinger had said, “It should be settled maxim of US foreign policy never to take on more than one major Asian power at a time.” China is the real peer competitor of the USA in the long term. It has almost matching economic power and is fast catching up in military power. It will prove to be far more dangerous than Russia could ever be with its economic constraints. It would be prudent for America to designate its main threat clearly. If it is China, it makes eminent strategic sense to seek détente with one while going full steam to contain the other. Nixon had done that by a détente with Mao’s China when USSR was the main threat. Today, the situation is reversed and a détente with Russia makes eminent sense. It will allow the USA and the West to focus its energies on China. The desire to take on China and Russia together sounds macho, but is highly unrealistic. Given Biden’s disastrous performance against Afghanistan the world would be forgiven for being somewhat skeptical. That, however, is the problem. Only a self-assured and confident leader would refrain from knee jerk, tactical responses and think strategic and long term. Where monthly popularity ratings decide responses it would be overly optimistic to expect such a clear headed response from President Biden. Post Afghanistan he has little room for manoeuvre.

The post RUSSIA-UKRAINE – Wargaming Scenarios: Strategy and Options (Part 2) appeared first on IMR.

The roots of the current military crisis in Ukraine can be traced back to the events surrounding the breakup of the former USSR. The USSR was one of the two superpowers in the bi-polar era. However, it was a wounded giant that had, in fact, not really recovered from the staggering manpower and material losses of World War II. Its economy was highly dependent on export of oil and gas. America engaged it in a geo-economic competition. It started the Star Wars arms race. In the 1980s, the USA made a deliberate effort to bring down the prices of oil globally by engineering an oil glut. Oil prices went into free-fall ($10- 30 a barrel) and severely derailed the Soviet economy. Afghanistan added to the hemorrhaging.

The USSR was an over militarized state. By 1990, it simply collapsed from what Paul Kennedy calls economic overreach and imperial over-stretch. A superpower went down without a shot being fired and the world was shocked. A uni-polar global order, now led by America and the West, came into being. The Soviet Union splintered with many of its republics in Eastern Europe and Central Asia seceding. There was chaos in Russia and it struggled to restore order.

NATO Expansion

The West had initially promised that there would not be even an inch of NATO expansion in Eastern Europe (US Foreign Secretary James Baker’s assurance to Gorbachov). All these verbal assurances, however, were violated with impunity. As a result of Russian military and economic weakness, NATO expanded eastward in four distinct phases:-

Phase One 1990. Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic – three former Warsaw pact countries joined NATO.

Phase Two 2004. Seven countries to include Estonia, Latavia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Rumania, Bulgaria and Slovenia followed suit.

Phase Three 2009. Albania and Croatia joined NATO.

Phase Four 2017-2019. Montenegro and Macedonia followed suit. Thus, by 2019, some 14 countries in Eastern Europe had Joined NATO.

President Vladimir Putin of Russia rapidly started closing the conventional military gap. By 2008, Russia hit back hard in Georgia and then in 2014 it captured Crimea in Ukraine. The present crisis has really been precipitated by the clear change in military-technical capabilities, which have altered the local conventional military power balance in Eastern Europe. Putin is now determined to change the security architecture in Europe to reflect these military realities and has virtually issued demarches to the US and NATO to renegotiate the security equations in Europe. He has mobilized the largest number of troops on the border of Ukraine in a clear coercive deployment, a use of force without war to re-negotiate security terms in Europe. If he can do it without war it would suit him eminently. The danger is that if he does not get the outcomes he seeks, he is fully prepared and ready to go to war.

In a clear escalation, the Russian Duma recommended recognition of Dontesk and Luhansk provinces in Ukraine, where Russian separatists are fighting and, on 21 February, Putin duly announced recognition of these two states. Economic sanctions did not deter him as he feels Russia’s core strategic interests are involved and he has articulated his red lines so publically that there is no chance of him recalling his troops without enforcing his red lines. He would lose great face domestically and internationally and he simply cannot afford that. Putin has acted decisively as he is fully prepared for the next steps in the military escalation ladder.

Military – Technical Factors

It is my contention that these sea-saw in the fortunes of Russia and the West can be traced back to the swings in the conventional military power balance between the two blocks from 1990 to date. These were largely focused on gaining superiority in air power and anti-air defenses. From World War II onwards, air superiority had become a decisive war winning factor. The Korean War saw a stalemate in air power and that shaped the stalemate on the ground. The Vietnam War saw US war planes and helicopters taking huge losses (over 3400 lost) from rudimentary Soviet Air defences and surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). The Americans deeply studied these and learnt major lessons. They began to make a serious bid to regain air superiority. They learnt from Israeli experiences in the 1967 and 1973 Conflicts.

By 1973, low level Russian SAM-6 and SAM-7 missiles had inflicted fearful losses to aircraft flying at the low level to evade radar. Meanwhile, USA had fielded a number of new fourth-generation fighters like F-15, F-16 and F-18 as also the AWACs and AEWs. Then came the precision guided munitions (PGMs) by 1990, which created a significant military technical revolution (Revolution in Military Affairs) with far reaching impact. These enabled aircraft to bomb from mid and high altitude without losing accuracy. Thus, they could stay out of the low firing SAM envelopes. The US demonstrated this in the first war against Iraq, when Soviet-era weapons were decimated and air power paved the way for a decisive victory.

The USSR had imploded as a result of economic decline and these military technical factors added to Russian weakness. Thereafter, it was a uni-polar world with USA as the sole superpower based on its conventional military superiority in air power. Things began to stabilize in Russia only when Putin took charge around the turn of the century. Slowly, the Russians began to close the air power gap with their Su-27, Su-30 and Su-35 jet fighters along with MiG-29s and their own AWACs and PGMs. Thus, by 2008, we once again saw the Russians asserting themselves in Georgia. The Americans had sought to regain superiority by investing heavily in stealth technology and fielded stealth aircraft like F-22, F-35 fighters and B-2 bombers and beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles for air-to-air combat. The problem was this technology was frightfully expensive and stealth aircraft could not be fielded in large numbers because of cost factor.

Thus, in 2014, we saw Russia again capturing Crimea and seizing parts of Donbas. Today, we are seeing the Impact of the Russian S-400 and S-500 Triumf missile systems upon the Eastern European battlefield. These air defence (AD) missile systems have radars that can look out to 600 kms and pick up stealth aircraft. They have multiple missiles that can engage enemy aircraft from 40 out to 400 kms. They can achieve Anti Access & Area Denial (A2AD) capabilities and totally deny the airspace over the combat area. This, and a whole host of other weapons, which Russia had tested in Syria have today given it the confidence to decisively challenge the USA and NATO enforced status quo in Eastern Europe and seek a radical re-structuring of the security architecture in Europe. This is a decisive inflexion point and the crisis in Ukraine is a direct outgrowth of the shift in military-technical factors in favour of Russia.

The simple fact is that the USA and NATO have ruled out military retaliationand are relying primarily on economic sanctions to deter Russia. The implications are clear – USA is in no position now to take on Russia militarily in its own backyard. This is what has clearly emboldened Russia to exploit the military–technical advantage it has gained in recent years. It has now gone ahead despite threat of economic sanctions and recognized the Russian majority states of Dontesk and Luhansk giving a fait accompli to US and NATO. However, the crisis is far from over.

Russian redlines were not Dontesk and Luhansk but non-inclusion of Ukraine in NATO and no stationing of offensive weapons in the 14 East European nations recently incorporated into NATO. These have not been met and Russia, to my mind, will pursue them doggedly. Are we seeing the multi-polar moment?

Use of Force Without War: Op Parakram Anology

To back his demands Putin had deployed some 1,50,000 Russian troops around Ukraine. To cite an anology – it was like Operation Parakram, India’s massive deployment on Pakistan’s border after the terror attack on its parliament. This is using military deployment for coercion. The aim is to clearly threaten the use of force to achieve tangible results. This is the use of force without war. That is what Russia is doing currently. Will it work? Only if the use of force threat is credible. India lacked a clear military edge over Pakistan then and our political will to wage war was very tenuous. In Russia’s case, they have the military edge locally and their intent to Invade if their demands are not met is deadly serious. The USA and NATO have already thrown in the towel by clearly stating they will put no boots on the ground and restrict themselves to economic sanctions. Russia has now moved troops into Dontesk and Luhansk provinces of Ukraine. Should Ukraine retaliate, Russia will escalate dramatically as its military is fully poised to do so.

Stake Analysis

It is simply a case of stake analysis. Russia has crucial strategic stakes in Ukraine. It is the direct historical invasion route and abuts Russian borders. It has vital mineral reserves like Uranium, Titanium and natural gas, etc. Russia simply cannot afford to let it become part of NATO. It now has the military capability to stop NATO and can wreck Ukraine whenever it wants to. US and NATO can do little more than enforcing economic sanctions. Conversely, America has few strategic stakes in Ukraine except to needle Russia and stop the Nord 2 gas pipeline as part of the famed economic sanctions. Real economics now comes in significantly. The Nord 2 Russian gas will cost Germany $270 per 1000 cubic feet, whereas the American gas will cost them a $1000 per 1000 cubic feet. The US, perhaps, would be happy to see a war in Ukraine, which stops the Nord 2 gas and forces Germany to buy from USA. France and Germany have major economic linkages with Russia and are already very uneasy with the US resolve to push Russia to invade Ukraine for American profit in gas. That is why President Macron of France is making the most energetic efforts to stop the war.

What about Russia? Its stakes in Ukraine are simply crucial. Putin has clearly announced Russian red lines. He cannot backtrack. With Chinese help he can deal with western sanctions which will hurt Germany and France equally. The simple fact is that Putin cannot afford a military pull back with no concrete security outcomes. Initially, he seemed inclined to give negotiations a chance. He had written a letter to Joe Biden, in December 2021, spelling out his demands for security restructuring in Europe. In January, he got a reply that seemed rational to the Russian foreign minister Lavrov. Putin decided to give the negotiators a chance. Immediately, the US hardened its stance and began to boast that they had coerced Russia into backing down and that Ukraine had the right to choose its form of government and alliances. Russia simply stopped the withdrawal and increased the number of troops around Ukraine to some 1,90,000. In fact, out of Russia’s 12 Combined Arms Armies (corps) 11 are now deployed around Ukraine. They have staged forward their tanks, self propelled artillery and S-400 and S-500 missile systems. The Su-35 fighter bombers, attack helicopters and Iskander missiles have been deployed. The Russians were carrying out a major military exercise in Belarus with their 41st Army. This was to end on 20 February but Belarus has announced that Russian troops will stay on till NATO forces are in Poland, etc. The forces in Belarus are directly poised to strike at the Ukranian capital of Kiev and destroy the main command and control node. Stepping on the escalatory ladder the Russian Duma recommended that Russia recognise Dontesk and Luhansk. Putin announced that on 21 February, throwing down the gauntlet. Should Ukraine respond militarily it will be the pretext that Russia needs for a limited or partial invasion of Ukraine.

Simply stated, Putin will try his best to get without war the realignment of the security architecture in Europe by his coercive military deployment. If it works, well and good. The point to note is that if it does not, he is determined to go ahead and use major military force to underline his intent. That military reality force is now fully poised on ground.

The post RUSSIA-UKRAINE – Wargaming Scenarios: Military-Technical Factors (Part 1) appeared first on IMR.