Operation Unthinkable 2.0? Pentagon Updating War Plans Against Russia

[Thunder Bolt]

According to State and Defense Department sources speaking to Foreign Policy, the Pentagon is "dusting off," reevaluating and updating its contingency plans for war with Russia. The publication explains why all of this is Russia's fault, and where things may go from here.

The article, written by well-known Russian politics critic and self-confessed Russophobe Julia Ioffe, explains this is "the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union" that the Pentagon has decided to review and update its contingency plans for war with Russia, based on revised appraisals of the country as a potential threat, rather than a potential partner, to NATO.

The reason for the Pentagon's rush to update its war plans is, ostensibly, Russia's 'annexation' of Crimea, referring to the referendum held in the territory in the aftermath of the Maidan coup d'état in Kiev in early 2014, which saw the peninsula breaking off from Ukraine and joining Russia. It also includes Russia's 'invasion' of eastern Ukraine, referring to the repeated allegations made by officials in Kiev that between nine and 200,000 regular Russian troops are engaged militarily in the eastern breakaway regions of Donetsk and Lugansk.
An unnamed senior defense official familiar with the updated plans told FP that "given the security environment, given the actions of Russia, it has become apparent that we need to make sure to update the plans that we have in response to any potential aggression against any NATO allies."


The official did not comment and presumably was not asked about whether the US's policy of supporting regime change in Kiev against an unpopular but democratically elected president in February 2014 may have had anything to do with Russia's response to the Ukraine crisis, and thus with the deterioration of relations between Washington and Moscow.

FP emphasized that the new plans are a response to a drastic departure from NATO-Russia relations which emerged following the collapse of the Soviet Union, where for many years Moscow acceded to the alliance's march eastward, signing defense and cooperation agreements, holding "joint military exercises, regular consultations, and even [opening] a NATO transit point in Ulyanovsk, Russia, for materiel heading to the fight in Afghanistan." Prior to the crisis in Ukraine, Russia was "neither a danger nor a priority."

The official explained that the new plans, each having to do with hypothetical Russian aggression against the Baltic states (naturally), have two tracks, one focusing on US action against Russia in coordination with NATO, and the other considering the US acting independently of the alliance.
As Ioffe explains, "both versions of the updated contingency plans focus on Russian incursions into the Baltics, a scenario seen as the most likely front for new Russian aggression." Moreover, "they are increasingly focusing not on traditional warfare, but on the hybrid tactics Russia used in Crimea and eastern Ukraine: 'little green men', manufactured protests, and cyber warfare." Taken together, this is said to comprise "a significant departure from post-Cold War US defense policy."


If FP's estimation of the new thinking going into the Pentagon's war plans against Russia is correct, it remains uncertain just how the Russian military's 'little green men' would find their way into the Baltic states, given that unlike Crimea, where the Russian military had a long-term base agreement to host Russia's Black Sea Fleet, Moscow does not have any military bases in any of the Baltic countries.

As far as Russia using the sneaky hybrid warfare methods of 'manufactured protests' and sending unidentified little green men to capture key positions in regional government, as has been alleged in eastern Ukraine, it seems that the Pentagon's planners simply cannot fathom the idea that people in some regions of an ethnically and socially divided country (like Ukraine) could have launched organic protests and organized self-defense forces following declarations from post-coup authorities in the capital that banning the Russian language and crushing counterrevolutionary resistance would be among their first priorities.

Wargame Fail

Foreign Policy explains with worry that since last year, repeated wargame scenario testing by the Rand Corporation for the US government of a hypothetical Russian 'hybrid invasion' of Estonia and Latvia has found that NATO would not be able to defend those countries at present force levels.

Citing commentary by Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Development David Ochmanek, who now works at Rand and is involved in the simulations, FP noted that "given the recent reductions in the defense budgets of NATO member countries and American pullback from the region," NATO would be "outnumbered 2-to-1 in terms of manpower, even if all the US and NATO troops stationed in Europe were dispatched to the Baltics –including the 82nd Airborne, which is supposed to be ready to go on 24 hours' notice and is based at Fort Bragg, North Carolina."

Citing hours of games involving the various scenarios which consistently resulted in a Russian victory, Ochmanek explained that "we just don't have those forces in Europe. The conclusion was that we are unable to defend the Baltics."


FP notes that even "working on the assumption that the United States and NATO had already started making positive changes to their force posture in Europe," presumably via a massive increase in the NATO men and heavy equipment present along Russia's western borders, "the conclusion was slightly more upbeat, but not by much." Ochmanek noted that NATO "can defend the capitals, we can present Russia with problems, and we can take away the prospect of a coup de main. But the dynamic remains the same." The problem, in the defense analyst's view, is the 'logistics of distance', as well as the time necessary to mobilize the US military contingent meant to defend the Baltics.

What Russia would possibly have to gain from attacking a NATO member, which raises the prospect of immediate nuclear and conventional retaliation from a numerically and military superior adversary, without the prospect of gains of any strategic importance, remains unclear, but it seems that the Pentagon's take on the matter is that until NATO has conventional superiority over Russia on Russia's own frontiers, the threat of the Russian bear will remain intolerably disturbing.
The good news for hawkish-minded analysts in Washington appears to be that the Defense Department has factored the results of the wargaming thought experiments into their planning, the unnamed senior official telling FP that the results will be used "to better understand a situation that few of us have thought about in detail for a number of years," adding that even as things are at present, "I have no doubt that NATO will prevail and that we will restore the territorial integrity of any NATO member."


In any case, Ioffe suggests that the Pentagon's updating of its war plans against Russia is actually Russia's fault, playing "right into Putin's paranoid fantasies about a showdown between Russia and NATO or between Russia and the United States." The columnist bouoyantly suggests that the Pentagon's plans are signals, "to Russia that the United States is not sitting on its hands," and to US policymakers "that the Pentagon feels that [military cutbacks hobble] its ability to deal with the new threat landscape."
Operation Unthinkable 2.0? Pentagon Updating War Plans Against Russia

 

[Oracle]

Attack a nuclear armed country . if she will lose the war , then you will lose your country forever . hint

 

[nangyale]

Yes, Russia is *still* ready for war – even nuclear war
On March 1st of last year I wrote an article entitled “Obama just made things much, much worse in the Ukraine – now Russia is ready for war” in which I wrote the following: “I hope and pray that Obama, and his advisers, stop and think carefully about their next step, because make no mistake about that RUSSIA IS READY FOR WAR.” Using bolded red caps was my hope to get everybody’s attention, including the various US analysts reading my blog and thinking that maybe I knew a little something about Russia. This was the first time in my (now ex-) career as a military analyst that I delivered such a warning, and it is a sweet irony for me that it was made publicly and not behind all sorts of secrecy walls.

I STILL very much believe that Russia is ready for war. And by “ready” I mean two things:

a) Russia is morally and psychologically willing to use military force to defend herself against the Empire

b) Russia does have the military means to defend herself against the Empire.

I fully agree with a recent article on Russia Insider entitled “NATO Would Probably Lose A War Against Russia“. I don’t know who the “Shellback” who wrote this article is, but I can immediately recognize a fellow “cold warrior” who, like me, must have spent many hours studying the works of V.G. Reznichenko and David Glantz and who knows what he is talking about. You can take what “Shellback” wrote to the bank.

Recently, the Times of London posted an article about threats allegedly made by senior Russian intelligence officers to their western colleagues. Since the Times’ website is behind a pay-wall, I will direct you to this reprint from The Australian. Let me immediately say, that all the details given about the alleged meeting sound totally true to me and that I have no reason whatsoever to doubt that this time around, The Times actually printed a true story. I am aware of the fact that Putin’s spokesman, Peskov, has immediately denied the story, but in this (very rare) case, I still believe the western corporate media. Why? Because everything in the story is absolutely credible. In particular these excerpts:

Among the “key messages delivered by Russian participants” was a warning that any military move by the West on Crimea would trigger a Russian response, possibly involving nuclear force. “The United States should also understand it would also be at risk.”

The Russian delegation said that any NATO build-up in the Baltics would prompt an increase in Russia’s “nuclear posture”, according to notes drawn up by a US participant. The warning is baldly recounted: “Russia will use its nuclear weapons against NATO.”

When discussing possible Russian action in the Baltics, it reported: “Russian members mentioned a spectrum of responses from nuclear to non-military.”

The most trenchant Russian remarks on eastern Europe were delivered by the former military intelligence chief Valentin Korabelnikov, who remains a senior adviser to the defence ministry. Since the GRU masterminded the annexation of Crimea, he is likely to have been involved in the planning. He said that the biggest threat to Russia was US activity along its borders, according to notes taken by Kevin Ryan, a retired US brigadier-general who served as defence attaché in Moscow.

Most people in the West, especially those who have not yet ditched their Idiot-Tube, are getting influenced by propaganda, whether they realized it or not. Just living in a highly propagandized society makes you absorb a lot of that propaganda, as if by osmosis. One such propaganda myth is about the condition and readiness of the Russian military. Of course, it is a very cozy “feel good” feeling to “know” that your military is just “the best”, as if by definition, but the reality is very different and ignoring it is very dangerous. Here are the raw facts:

1. In the Ukraine Russia has a *huge* terrain advantage over the US/NATO, simply because the Ukraine is right across Russia’s border. NATO simply does not have the power projection capability or numbers to intervene in the Ukraine.

2. The Russian Ground Forces are much tougher, better trained and better commanded that their NATO counterparts.

3. The Russian Air Force is more capable that NATO’s, both in terms of personnel and in terms of equipment.

4. Russian Air Defense Forces are the best on the planet.

5. Russian nuclear forces are much more modern and capable than the US ones.


Spetsnaz GRU Operator

6. Russian special forces are, by far, the most capable on the planet and, unlike their US counterparts, their combat record (Operation Storm-333, “Polite Green Men” in Crimea) proves it. In any Ukrainian war, they will play a key role.

[Sidebar: Western propaganda always makes loud claims about this or that kind of training, this or that kind of weapons, this or that kind of quotes and statements about super-dooper, super-secret, “best in the world”, special forces, but I simply look at the combat record. You can train all you want, and spend 100 days in the desert eating lizards, but unless you have some real war time combat success to show, I don’t take your claims seriously. Recently, a commentator wrote that the best infantry in the world was the Australian one, because they had learned their skills from the Bushman. Great. One look at the territory currently controlled by the Bushmen and the size of Russia will tell you everything you need to know about that claim :-]

Now, make no mistake: Russia does not want war. If Russia wanted war, Putin would have sent the Russian military into the Donbass last year. In fact, Russia does not even want another “cold” war in Europe. But Russia is prepared to defend herself, if the AngloZionist Empire insists on making her submit to its hegemony.

As for Crimea, it is simply not negotiable. Any attempt to break Crimea away from Russia will be considered as an attack on Russia. You might as well try to seize the Kremlin.

Lastly, notice that I said “Russia is ready”. Not “Putin is ready”. Not only is Putin supported by something in the range of 85%+ of Russians, even though those who oppose him (LDPR, Communist Party, Just Russia) fully and totally support Putin’s refusal to surrender to the Empire. The size of the pro-western part of the Russian population must be roughly in the 3%-5% max, not even enough to get one single deputy into the Duma.

Let me explain something about Russian history here.

Russia began as a rather small principality, much smaller and weaker than Poland. And then Russia got invaded by a multi-ethnic mix of nomads from the East. Russia did not have any natural borders. Not only that, but most of Russia is, in military terms, much more similar to an ocean than to dry land: huge forests, infinite steppes, extreme climates, etc. Finally, unlike western Europe, where a surrendering force was usually spared, in the vast expanses of Russia, surrender was simply not an option. Surrender meant death. The Russian gene pool was directly affected by this selective pressure. As was Russian culture.

[Sidebar: my daughter always laughs that Russian songs are all about only three topics: love, the Motherland and war. She is right. War and everything it represents in an integral part of the Russian culture as is sacrificing your life for the Motherland.]

For those still dubious, I would recommend machine translating this page. It is an analysis of all the wars and battles Russia fought between 1700 and 1940. The results are clear:

For 250 years of its existence of the Russian military fought 392 regular army battles against the Swedes, the French, the Germans, the Turks, the Poles, the Tatars, the Finns, various ethnic groups from the Caucasus, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Austrians, the Hungarians, the British, the Italians, and Central Asian nations. Of those Russia won – 279.

Russia only lost 3 out of 34 wars:

1. Crimea
2. Russian-Japanese
3. Polish-Soviet 1920.

And in most these battles Russia has inferior numbers of troops and inferior weapons.

So much for the usual western myths about “winning by numbers” or “General Winter” (these myths are the output of bruised western egos, not military analysis).

This history creates a paradox: Russians absolutely hate war and even fear it, but in war they are determined and fearless. Furthermore, the “ocean like” terrain results in the Russians being unbeatable at two things: maneuver warfare and intelligence/reconnaissance. As for “retreat” on an ocean-like terrain, it has very different meaning than in traditional land warfare.

I believe that this is what the Russian intelligence officers were trying to convey to their counterpart at the meeting reported by The Times: we don’t want war, but if you force us to, we will defeat you.

You might ask about nuclear war – would the Russians really risk death rather than surrender? After all, the USA *does* really have the means to wipe most Russian cities off the world map! Again, the answer is simple: Russia has almost always fought an existential threat. Sure, the US has nukes, but Hitler’s project for Russia was hardly any better (to turn the Russian subhumans into slaves for the Master’s Race). Unlike westerner, who have hardly ever faced a real existential threat (Hitler does not count – he was very much “our son of a bitch”), Russians have, numerous times. That is the big advantage of imperialism, especially for a power protected by the seas: wars happen away from home. In a nuclear war, both Russia and the USA would lose 20-50 million people. Now take a guess, which country is more capable of loosing anywhere between 1/5 to 1/2 of its population and then survive the nuclear winter and radioactive fallout?

In conclusion, I want to say the following to those who will dismiss all of the above as nonsense and still believe that the western military forces could prevail against Russia: you are welcome to dismiss all of the above, but please realize that the vast majority of Russians really do believe it! And as a direct result of that – they will not submit, they will not “blink”, they will not surrender and they will fight you with everything they have.

This topic makes me sick to my stomach. I hate it. I am also frustrated to tears that having survived the Cold War, I am now facing by far the most dangerous international situation since the Cuban Missile Crisis (and then, at least, everybody was terrified; today the propaganda zombified public is utterly unaware of what is happening). The only reason I feel that I have to repeat all these things is in the hope that somebody somewhere will take my warnings seriously and warn his/her bosses.

If you are that person – please do the right thing now.

The Saker

 

[Levina]

"right into Putin's paranoid fantasies about a showdown between Russia and NATO or between Russia and the United States."

Russia is not in a position to attack any country, not that they dont have the capability to do so but Putin knows that such an attack would earn them the ire of NATO which is waiting for an excuse to pounce on Russia...with economic sanctions.
America and its allies also dont have lady luck on their side, their economy is weak and they would not like to meddle in a war going on elsewhere, Syria is an example.
I am expecting threatening statements and some hollow promises from the American and Russian side...do not expect any real action.

 

[jhungary]

Why is this surprise? That US still have plan to attack Russia.......

US have plan to invade and annex Canada. It was within their continuation of government plan that was still in use the last time I check, so what is so surprising that US still have a plan to attack Russia??

 

[Imran Khan]

ohhh god damn stupid humans do you have anything else then fighting each other and killing harming poor or species ?