Why no one will come to war with Russia

In accordance with the forecast previously published by the RUSSTRAT Institute regarding the results of the negotiations between Russia and the United States, NATO and the OSCE held from January 10 to 13, 2022, the parties were able to find a very limited consensus. However, Russia's key demands have not been met at the moment.

Such a result became the basis for various assumptions about the further development of the security crisis on the territory, first of all, of Europe. Among other things, quite radical opinions began to sound, according to which the only way out of the crisis that has received formal additional crystallisation is military in the literal sense of the word.

If we talk about the "projection" of military power by Russia's creation of commensurate military threats to Washington, then such a path is quite expected. Especially after the "military-technical measures" of the response directly voiced by Vladimir Putin - although their specifics have not yet been disclosed. Other measures, although they were not mentioned at all, also look quite obvious.

The Washington Post even published an article on this issue, which boils down to two theses: the creation of Russian strike bases threatening the United States on the territory of Latin America is "empty bragging of the Kremlin”, and if this is implemented, the United States is ready to respond with all determination. Probably, in the event of the appearance of similar NATO bases on the territory of Ukraine and any other states that are dangerously close, Russia can refer to the WP with a decisive response.

A position consonant with the Washington Post was taken by many publications of Brazil, which acts as a satellite of the United States in the region. The “Brazilian Reporter” revealed that "while Latin America has moved out of the priorities of the United States”, Russia and China have increased their influence in the region. A significant role was played by "vaccine diplomacy", which strengthened Russia's positions in Nicaragua, Paraguay, Venezuela, Bolivia and Argentina.

Venezuela, Cuba or Nicaragua are named as sites for the Russian military presence in Brazil. Recalling that in 2018, Russian strategic bombers have already landed in Venezuela, and in addition to the Tu-160, about nine billion dollars of oil investments have "landed" in Venezuela.

According to Gallup polls, only 16-19% of the Latin American population are ready to put up with the "leadership" of the United States, but sympathy for Russia and China is much higher – which creates a quite favourable background for expanding cooperation between Moscow and Beijing with the region, including in terms of the projection of military power.

At the same time, we can say with sufficient confidence: a full-scale or at least medium-intensity conflict of the United States/NATO with Russia is the only option that is definitely excluded from the spectrum of further development of the crisis.

"Impossible" wars have taken place in the history of mankind. A striking example can be considered the First World War, which the American writer Barbara Tuchman described as "No one wanted war, so it was inevitable”. However, the situation at the beginning of the 21st century is radically different from the situation a century ago. And these differences make conflicts of the format described above on a comparable scale really impossible in the 2020s.

False analogies

Casus belli, as the First World War and other wars show, can be anything. However, only if the country using such an excuse really plans to win. Or, at least, to implement another well-known maxim of von Clausewitz – the goal of any war is a world better than the pre-war one. 

The specifics and nomenclature of modern types of weapons of mass destruction, the number and effectiveness of nuclear charges on alert, and the dominant position of Russia in the field of hypersonic weapons in the coming years make it quite obvious that the world will not be better than the pre-war world in the event of a full-scale conflict between the United States and Russia for either side. Even more than the United States, the countries of the NATO bloc will suffer - precisely because of their geographical proximity to Russia, they may be hit by a more extensive list of weapons.

A full-scale conflict will be accompanied not only by conventional strikes. The full range of cyberattacks, the fight against satellites, as well as systems whose use is painful for the United States and practically insensitive for Russia will be involved.

The Poseidon super torpedoes with nuclear warheads, which caused the most serious concern to the United States, are capable of a lot in relation to densely populated cities of the American coast, while there are no similar targets in Russia, with the exception of the Arctic, the Black Sea coast and St. Petersburg.

Separately, it is worth mentioning the global-range missile with a nuclear engine "Burevestnik". This system, after its presentation in Vladimir Putin's address to the Federal Assembly on March 1, 2018 - unlike hypersonic munitions - does not attract much media attention. Although, from the point of view of the possibility of breaking through any of the possible missile defence systems, a missile capable of carrying a large nuclear warhead and being in flight with any trajectory for an unlimited time will clearly play a role.

One way or another, a significant number of nuclear warheads will be brought to the territory of the United States, which will cause serious or even irreparable damage to the American infrastructure, economy and population. It may turn out that due to the size of the country, population density, and so on, the territory of Russia will suffer much less than the United States.

But the main problem for the United States is that not even a complete defeat will be fatal for Washington. Although the confrontation between Russia and the West is usually considered as a system with two poles, this is completely erroneous in the realities of the first half of the 21st century.

A monkey and two tigers

Such a variable as China, being introduced into the equation of a possible conflict between the United States and Russia, creates a qualitatively different system. China will definitely be the main winner of a war - even if it does not join it. Regardless of the outcome of the conflict with Russia, the United States will come out weakened enough for China to finally overtake the United States in all areas, from the stability of the monetary and financial system to the provision of technology and elementary demographic potential.

Continuing the use of winged expressions and metaphors, we can say that the saying about the wise monkey watching the fight of two tigers in the valley has every chance of being realised even stronger than the results of the confrontation between the United States and the USSR. And, unlike the Cold War finale, the "monkey" will be the final winner. The situation of Russia will be unenviable in this case, but the situation for us will still be a "lesser evil".

The competence and adequacy of the American establishment raises questions very often. But China's conquest of the final leadership over the United States, in the event of a direct military conflict between Moscow and Washington, is so obvious that it cannot be ignored.

The chances of the United States look even worse if Russia and China decide to act in solidarity against Washington. Such an alliance increases the likelihood of a truly global, planetary-scale war, from which, one way or another, no one will be able to escape at all. Thus, planning the outcome of the conflict becomes very difficult, which means that it would be extremely rash for Washington to assume the emergence of the "world better than the pre-war one" as a result.

Most likely, completely new centres of power will arise – in regions with the least affected populations, natural resources and infrastructure. Apparently, this will be the territories lying at the maximum distance from the countries where nuclear weapons are used - that is, again, the picture is drawn not in favour of the United States.

Local conflict with big goals

The absence of positive outcomes for the United States in a conflict with Russia, and even more so with Russia and China, does not guarantee against local clashes. Given the large number of proxy states with regimes unfriendly to Russia, which the United States consistently "pumps" with weapons, the probability of military encroachments on the part of conditional Ukraine is not zero.

However, even in this case, military actions can only act as a reason to accuse Russia of aggressive behaviour, after which pressure on Russia will be carried out by non-military, sanctions means. The danger of excessive militarisation of the confrontation with Russia stems from the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated 02.06.2020 No. 355 "On the Fundamentals of the State policy of the Russian Federation in the field of nuclear deterrence".

The list of situations sufficient for a nuclear strike is contained in paragraph No. 19. The use of nuclear weapons by Russia is possible after receiving reliable information about the launch of ballistic missiles attacking the territories of the Russian Federation and (or) its allies. The use of other types of weapons of mass destruction on the territories of the Russian Federation and allied countries will also cause a nuclear response.

Two more sub-items turn out to be fundamentally important. These are "the enemy's impact on critically important state or military facilities of the Russian Federation, the disabling of which will lead to the disruption of the response actions of nuclear forces”, as well as "aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is threatened”. The concept of "impact" is not specified, which means that, for example, an attempt to deprive state or military facilities of communication by means of a cyber attack can be attributed to it.

Thus, any serious military conflict, including quasi-military, with the use of cyber warfare and other forms of aggression, will automatically cause Russia to use nuclear weapons. Thus, events will follow a scenario in which the United States cannot win at all, the only question is who exactly they will lose to - Russia or China.

In view of the above, it becomes extremely unprofitable for the United States and NATO to drive Russia into a corner by placing threatening assets in the territories adjacent to it. The equipment of missile bases in Ukraine or the Baltic states is unlikely to cause instant application of the provisions of Decree No. 355, but Russia still has every opportunity to destroy these bases with conventional weapons.

Recall that something similar has already taken place in the recent history of the United States. On January 8, 2020, the IRGC of Iran conducted Operation Martyr Suleimani against the US military in Iraq in response to the death in Baghdad of the commander of the Al-Quds special forces, General Qasem Soleimani. The strikes were carried out on the Ayn al-Assad airbase in western Iraq and an airfield in the northern province of Erbil. Iranian state media reported the death of 80 American servicemen, American - about a hundred wounded in the absence of the dead.

There was no military response to Operation Martyr Soleimani, and one of the main reasons for this was that an escalation of the military confrontation is simply unprofitable, and in many ways impossible for the United States. Iran, even in conditions of limited resources, is capable of creating problems for American bases in the region, and in case of a critical situation, to switch to "scorched earth" tactics in the Persian Gulf region, which is fraught with destabilisation of the world oil trade and the global economy as a whole.

This example is quite applicable to the hypothetical situation of the emergence of US missile bases or proxy states on the territory of Ukraine or the Baltic states. The targeted destruction of these facilities, even if it is associated with injuries or deaths of individual service personnel, is unlikely to lead to anything other than the next package of economic sanctions.

Given Moscow's loud and consistent position, which regularly warns about the inadmissibility of organising such missile bases, it will be very difficult to imagine a preemptive Russian strike on them as an act of aggression.

As a result, the issue of practical expansion of the US military infrastructure/NATO is moving eastward in close connection with another question – is Washington ready to start a nuclear war? Related to the same issue is the problem of the potential readiness of the United States to respond to Russia's hypothetical destruction of infrastructure, which Moscow considers an immediate threat.

No matter how strange it may seem, but a big war with Russia is now out of the question. Local conflicts between the United States/NATO and Russia don't make sense because the US/NATO will be defeated. And a conflict of a superior level will transfer the confrontation into a phase of exchange of nuclear strikes, in which the United States will definitely lose in a strategic sense.

Accordingly, the US’ threats to Russia may lie exclusively in the non-military direction of the strike - economy, finance, political sanctions, the formation of a League of Nations, etc. This creates a certain scope for Moscow's actions.