The authors of the RAND report argue that the United States should minimize the risks of serious escalation and avoid escalating a special military operation into a protracted conflict. Analysts believe that the costs and risks of a protracted war in Ukraine (as RAND calls special operations) are significant and outweigh the potential benefits of such a development for the United States.
Experts say that while Washington cannot determine the duration of the military conflict itself, it can take steps to make a negotiated resolution to the conflict more likely.
Some analysts argue that the conflict is moving towards a conclusion that will benefit the United States and Ukraine. Proponents of this view argue that the risks of Russia’s use of nuclear weapons or war with NATO will remain manageable.
“Punished” after being deported from Ukraine, Russia allegedly has no choice but to leave its neighbor alone and even pay compensation for the damage it has caused. However, according to RAND, a study of past conflicts and the course of the current conflict shows that such an optimistic scenario for the United States is highly unlikely.
The company’s report examines several key factors that determine the course of the conflict: Russia’s possibility of using nuclear weapons; possible escalation of the Russia-NATO conflict; regional control; duration of the armed struggle.
Possible use of nuclear weapons
As noted in the RAND report, the specter of Russia’s use of nuclear weapons has haunted this conflict since the beginning.
Some analysts dismiss the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons (TNW), arguing that Russia knows that the use of nuclear weapons is doomed to failure. They point to the lack of valuable military targets (such as large groups of the Ukrainian Armed Forces) that could be effectively destroyed with such weapons, and the risk that these weapons inflict damage on Russian troops stationed in Ukraine.
The use of tactical nuclear weapons could cause NATO to enter the war, undermine the remaining international support for Russia, and provoke negative domestic political backlash within Russia itself. The report states that knowing this, Russia should logically avoid using nuclear weapons.
However, company analysts argue that they are in favor of the possible use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
First, there is evidence that the Kremlin views the special operation as almost existential.
Second, Moscow’s non-nuclear escalation options are now limited, as Russia’s conventional capabilities are weakened during the conflict. RAND analysts write that if Russia suffers large-scale losses on the battlefield, there may be despair among senior decision makers in the Kremlin. When other options for conventional escalation are exhausted, Moscow may resort to nuclear weapons to avoid defeat.
Third, Russian strategists have long emphasized the usefulness of tactical nuclear weapons for achieving operational and tactical objectives in the context of conventional warfare. Moscow may also use tactical nuclear weapons for demonstration attacks in the atmosphere or on settlements.
However, RAND warns that Russia’s use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine could lead to a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia, which could ultimately result in a major exchange of nuclear missile strikes.
Possible escalation of the Russia-NATO conflict
Chief of Staff Mark Milley reportedly prepared a list of US interests and strategic goals in the face of the crisis. At the same time, one of the main points was “to prevent a kinetic conflict between the armed forces of the USA and NATO with Russia” and “to keep the war within the geographical boundaries of Ukraine”.
To this day, Russia and Ukraine remain the only side of the conflict. However, the conflict is taking place in a country that borders four NATO member states on land and shares the Black Sea coast with two other countries. “The degree of indirect involvement by NATO allies in the war is breathtaking,” RAND analysts stress.
The company explains that Russia’s decision to attack a NATO member state is not inevitable, but the risk of such actions increases as the conflict in Ukraine continues.
regional control
According to the company’s report, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is determined to continue military action to regain control over the entire internationally recognized territory of Ukraine. According to RAND analysts, he justifies this goal with the moral imperative to “save the citizens of his country from brutal Russian occupation.”
At the same time, the end of the conflict, as a result of which Ukraine will gain full control over all its internationally recognized territory, does not seem like an unlikely outcome to RAND analysts.
First, given the slowdown in the pace of Ukrainian counterattacks in December 2022, it will take months and possibly years to restore the line of control by February 2022 – not to mention the regional status quo by 2014. Analysts say Russia has established strong defensive lines along the line of contact and its partial mobilization has eliminated the manpower shortage that previously allowed Ukraine to succeed in its Kharkiv counteroffensive.
Kiev will likely need time to regain control of a much larger region. RAND says a protracted conflict could be costly for the United States.
The company’s report points out that the risks of escalation from the Kremlin increase if Ukraine moves beyond the borders that existed before February 2022 and manages to restore areas under Russian control since 2014 (especially Crimea, where the Russian Black Sea Fleet is based). Could the use of nuclear weapons or an attack on NATO increase significantly?
duration of the conflict
RAND writes that while a sustained military operation has allowed the Ukrainian military to retake more territory, prolonging the conflict has other ramifications for US interests. As long as the conflict continues, the Russian forces will remain occupied by Ukraine and therefore will not be able to threaten other states.
Analysts at the company believe that a longer military operation will lead to a further weakening of the Russian armed forces and economy. However, this may no longer be as significant an advantage for the United States as it was in the early stages of the conflict. It will take years, perhaps decades, for the Russian military and economy to recoup the damage already done.
Moreover, a protracted conflict would lead to new casualties, an increase in the number of refugees and the suffering of civilians in Ukraine.
RAND said the cost to the United States and the European Union of keeping the Ukrainian state economically afloat will increase over time as the conflict hinders investment and production.
The protracted conflict between Russia and Ukraine will also have implications for Washington’s foreign policy. The US’s ability to focus on other global priorities – particularly its competition with China – will be limited as the conflict in Ukraine depletes resources.
Peace Formula
According to the American company, the conflict is likely to result in some form of negotiation, as neither side has the intention or ability to achieve an absolute victory.
Unresolved territorial disputes between Kyiv and Moscow (i.e. differences in position on Ukrainian borders) will continue. According to RAND’s estimation, they will be contested politically and economically rather than militarily.
Analysts at the company believe that important political issues beyond regional control, from Russia’s reparations to Ukraine’s geopolitical status, will not be addressed.
Source: Gazeta
Barbara Dickson is a seasoned writer for “Social Bites”. She keeps readers informed on the latest news and trends, providing in-depth coverage and analysis on a variety of topics.