Small Wars Journal

The Matryoshka is Empty: Why Russia Doesn’t Really Matter

Sun, 03/06/2016 - 11:10am

The Matryoshka is Empty: Why Russia Doesn’t Really Matter

Robert Murphy

“Paper Tiger (noun): one that is outwardly powerful or dangerous but inwardly weak or ineffectual”

                                                            -Merriam-Webster.com

Russia’s alleged threat to American interests is exaggerated, taken well out of context by those that would benefit from sustained American defense spending, and only applicable as it relates to NATO’s expansion in the Baltic States. The only real Russian threat to American interests is if it should collapse.

If you could not find Abkhazia, South Ossetia, the Donets Basin, Transnistria or Crimea on a map until Russia intervened, then you’ve understood the relevance a Russian challenge represents. Judging by the absence of any meaningful international response to Russia’s incursions, you would also be in good company. The regions in which Russia chooses to intervene militarily simply do not matter to America, or the world. This is not because Russia does not have interests in more relevant areas; it is because Russia simply cannot intervene anywhere else.

Russia has no reach. Statistically Russia possesses the strongest military that can influence Europe, but strength is relative. Russia is strong because Europe is weak. Europe has abused America’s security spending for decades and has ended up with papier-mâché militaries that require American leadership and supervision to work together. European security cooperation is often limited to cost sharing measures rather than substantial increases to defense capabilities. Viewed simplistically against such an adversary, Russia’s relative military advantage is formidable, but reversible should Europe get serious about its own defense.

Russia is at a stalemate against an arguably inferior military in the Ukraine, and is logistically constrained to operations in the Donets Basin, close to its border and overwhelmingly populated by ethnic Russians. The Donets Basin, and Russia’s other adventures in the Crimea, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia have turned those areas into economic disaster zones that consume Russian resources and provide little in return. This hardly represents the reach or strategic acumen of an American near-peer competitor.

However, in the context of vital interests, our Article V commitments to the Baltic 3 (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) represent the only existential, albeit highly unlikely, intersection of competing Russian-American interests. To America’s and Europe’s detriment, the Baltic 3 (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) became full-fledged members of NATO in 2004. In return for their numerically insignificant contributions, they represent NATO’s most vulnerable, most feasible targets for Russian military aggression.

As recent models demonstrate, the Baltic three would be no match for a concerted Russian assault. Assuming the model accounted for the mobilization of the tens of thousands of reservists to compliment the combined 30,000 active Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian servicemen and women, predictions are that Russia could conquer the region in the course of a long weekend. Simulations also rightly highlighted the absence of armored NATO forces to counter Russia’s strength in that area. Further problems for NATO emerge due to the sophistication of Russian air defense capabilities. Lastly, and most alarmingly, the study reminded analysts of the post-USSR change in Russian nuclear doctrine, now referred to as ‘de-escalation’, in which tactical nuclear weapons may be used to respond to a successful NATO ground assault.

However, the model assumes a hypothetical environment that places the possibility of such an event into the realm of the absurd. Russia’s overwhelming domestic social and economic challenges suggest that Russia is far more likely to collapse than it is to take over three nations with an economic output and population dwarfed by New Jersey[i]. Furthermore, for all its bluster, the least beneficial circumstance for Russia would be a war with the world. Western exclusion from the group of eight (now seven), western sanctions and sagging fuel prices have been sufficiently crippling.

Further indicators that Russia is relatively unconcerned by security challenges from the Baltic, is that it has made a clear prioritization of resources to its southern military district. It is evidently more concerned over jihadist terrorism in the Caucuses and support for breakaway regions such as Abkhazia, South Ossetia and the Crimea, than it is in diminishing U.S. influence in the Baltics.

Some analysts point to Russia’s operations in Syria as an example of expanded capabilities. While true, it is still too early to judge how strategically relevant those capabilities are. Russia’s ability to turn aircraft to execute sorties and launch somewhat precise cruise missile strikes certainly bear watching and assessing, however, these operations are relatively simple. They exist in a permissive environment absent an anti-aircraft threat, and sidestep the complexity of combined arms land based maneuver and their corresponding sustainment requirements. Sustaining operations in Syria also required extraordinary logistical measures, particularly in shipping. Operating airfields as a guest of a host nation is an apples to oranges comparison to opening a theater and conducting prolonged ground combat in hostile territory.

The beneficiaries of an aggressive American foreign policy towards Russia are manipulating the relevance of the threat it poses. Unsurprisingly, they consist of our allies and our own parochial strategic thinkers. Europe (Germany in particular) is still smarting from the departure of almost a quarter million Americans and their families since 1990. Russia’s existence and their inability to address military problems in their own back yards (think Bosnia, Kosovo and the Ukraine) are unpleasant reminders that eventually they may have to spend some of their own money on their militaries. Nations like Poland and the Czech Republic bear deep reciprocating, historical scars of occupation, and expended substantial diplomatic capital to host the American missile defense system that President Obama scrapped. Both would appreciate the domestic assurance, and of course financial boon, of hosting thousands of well-subsidized Americans and their families.

Professional American Analysts and Strategists include clans of former Euro-warriors for whom Russia will always be the adversary, and whose hard work helped construct the international coalitions that proved vital to our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. This bloc makes legitimate arguments about the trust building and interoperability that can only forward stationed forces can achieve. This argument assumes Europe will have the stomach and means to join us in another non-article V adventure like Iraq or Afghanistan. Europe’s armies are shrinking in both size and capability, as is the political will to support such a campaign.

Russia’s military deficiencies are unlikely to improve. Assuming the improbable conditions under which Russia’s flagging economy and ageing population will support planned military reforms, none of Russia’s initiatives really change the situation. Rather than address the capability gap between its ground combat units and their sustaining organizations, Russia chose to prioritize improvements such as ICBM delivery, ballistic missile submarines, and sea-based air defense. In effect, it has chosen to ignore the problems that limit its strategic reach in favor of systems that would deter American and Chinese challenges and intimidate European populations.   

An understanding of Russia’s broad ambitions is not hard to assess. Russia is hardly an inscrutable actor playing its cards close to the chest. It is a loud and boisterous bully whose activities are largely constrained to its home turf, and whose approach to its neighbors generates derision and scorn as often as it does awe. As described by Eugene Rumer of the Carnegie Endowment, Russia is a “security manager in a zone of privileged interest”.

Russia still represents a strategic challenge. Through their operations in The Ukraine and Syria, the Russians will inevitably gain capacity in asymmetric warfare, and air-ground operations. They already possess sophisticated cyber-warfare capabilities. Conversely, absent a concerted Russian effort to enhance long-range sustainment of ground forces, and a dramatic improvement in Russia’s population growth and economy, Russia will remain an interesting but marginally relevant challenge to American interests.   

Russia has no interest in investing itself in a large war, when proxy wars will do. It can challenge American interests only at great cost to itself and only under exceptional circumstances. Viewed in context of its capabilities, constraints and interests, Russia does not constitute a significant enough threat to justify the reapportionment of America’s increasingly limited military force structure.

End Note

[i] The combined GDP of the Baltic 3 is $135 Billion and includes a population of 6.3 million. The combined 3 armed forces (less reserves, which all 3 rely upon) is approximately 30k full time service members. Estonia does possess a highly advanced cyber warfare center which provides an exceptional niche capability to the Alliance.

 

About the Author(s)

Comments

Outlaw 09

Wed, 03/09/2016 - 4:47am

"Professional American Analysts and Strategists include clans of former Euro-warriors for whom Russia will always be the adversary"...and they were totally correct....check the second to last paragraph.....

Geoffrey Pyatt
✔ ‎@GeoffPyatt Read Nadiya Savchenko's powerful final written statement from her trial in Russia here:
http://goo.gl/0mFAoU via @RFERL

RFE/RL’s English translation.

Quote:

I accept neither guilt, nor the verdict, nor the Russian court. In the case of a guilty verdict there will be no appeal. I want the whole democratic civilized world to realize that Russia is a third-world country, with a totalitarian regime and a petty tyrant-dictator, where human rights and international law are spat upon.

It is an absurd situation when those who abduct people subject them to torture then act as if they have a right to judge them! How can one talk about a fair trial? In Russia, there are no trials or investigations -- only a farce played out by Kremlin puppets. And I find it superfluous to waste time in my life participating in it!

And so there will be no appeal, but this is what will happen: After the verdict I will continue my hunger strike for 10 more days, until the verdict comes into force -- and this is regardless of the translation [of the verdict] into Ukrainian, because they can drag that out for a long time, too. In 10 days I will begin a dry hunger strike [refusing both food and water], and then Russia will have no more than 10 days to return me to Ukraine, where they abducted me! And I don’t care how they justify it! I have heard that [Ukrainian President] Petro Oleksiyovych Poroshenko is quite adept at diplomacy. I hope his diplomatic skills will suffice to reach agreement in Russia with a certain idiot -- after all, he promised my mother that I would be home in time for the May holidays of 2015.

And while they are bargaining over me, my life will be draining away and Russia will return me to Ukraine in any case -- it will return me, dead or alive!

Throughout these 10 days, day and night, my sister will be standing at the jail gates, and she will wait and see whether they release me or not. And if you put her in jail, my mother will come and take her place. She is 77, will you put her in jail, too? In that case my friend will take her place, and after her -- Ukrainian after Ukrainian! And remember -- you can’t shove everybody in here. And while my compatriots are standing there, simple, honest, and decent Russians living in nearby homes will bring them hot tea, sandwiches, and warm blankets, because each one of them understands that tomorrow their child could be in my place, in this prison of all peoples called Russia!

That is how Maidans (revolutions) start! Do you need that?! You fear it like the plague! So it is better for the Kremlin to return me to Ukraine as soon as possible, and alive!

And those in the world with democratic values ought to learn their history lessons before it's too late and remember that there was a time when Europe was tolerant toward Hitler, and America wasn’t decisive enough, and this led to World War II. Putin is a tyrant with imperial manners and a Napoleon and Hitler complex put together. The [Russian] bear doesn’t understand human language, he understands only the language of force. Therefore, unless we become more decisive and determine the right priorities on time, we will soon have World War III.

And I, as a politician now, won’t shake Russia's hand in the political arena. It is not right to extend a hand to someone who kept you in handcuffs and your people in chains. But every time I make a political decision, I will always think how it would affect ordinary people, both in Ukraine and Russia. Because in Russia, in spite of everything, there are many honest, kind, and decent people.

Tropiccid

Wed, 03/09/2016 - 8:20am

In reply to by Outlaw 09

This article was a response to the recently concluded RAND Baltic war game. As a former Euro warrior who spent 12 years drinking the kool aid, I've come to the conclusion that our NATO partners must be at least as interested in defending their territorial integrity as America is. If the Russian threat is as existential as we are led to believe, then why isn't that reflected in European defense budgets or the size and capability of their militaries? Latvia and Lithuania, arguably at the most risk, continue to spend less than 1.5% of their GDP on defense, and have no plans of increasing either military spending or the size of their militaries. They are illustrative of the bigger picture; NATO's collective spending on defense decreased by $150 million between '14 and '15. Why should America's kids and money secure the Baltic frontier while German kids go to free university? Why should our SecDef make his annual pilgrimage to the NATO conference and plead with our Allies, for whom Russia is a far more existential threat, to pay the minimum articulated in the NATO Charter.. for their own defense! I could care less about their expeditionary capability, but they don't even pay to defend themselves within their own borders!
Putin, without a doubt is dangerous, but the greatest danger lies in him making a miscalculation. He is audacious, but he is not insane. I have a hard time imagining the situation in which seizing the Baltics benefits him or Russia. As I mentioned, lets take a hard look at where he's taken action: setting Syria aside for a sentence, all the others are on Russia's immediate border in areas dominated by ethnic Russians. In the Ukraine they're in a stalemate. Research what it took them to get into Syria.
Yes, Russia has some advanced niche capabilities, A2/AD among the most troubling. But without the capability to sustain a ground force (research Russian sustainment doctrine and organization) beyond their own borders, they are like a lion at the zoo roaring within its enclosure. If we really want Russia deterred, NATO partners need to step up, as Poland and Estonia have done. I cannot accept that sending American forces to sit on a border in Europe is the only solution. That course of action sounds remarkably like a plan that would appeal to a cold warrior. Russia is a shadow of the USSR, but that's another article.

Outlaw 09

Wed, 03/09/2016 - 3:48am

IMO this article is very interesting in what is not being said rather than what is being said......

While he talks about the reductions of NATO by the EU members and their rather unwillingness to expand their militaries again...the author failed to mention that the trigger for NATO reductions came FROM the US.... AFTER the multiple US announcements of the removal of their troops and the constant base reductions mainly in Germany...to the tune of 250,000...AND over 60 plus bases even into 2012/2013.......

Even in 2012/2013 that reduction continued with the removal of the last two light BCTs when some in DoD questioned that reduction...which actually removed the last US armor from Europe..

So in fact the rest of NATO was simply following the lead of the US.....following the motto after the Wall came down in 1991 no one ever envisioned what we are now seeing in Ukraine and Syria.

IMHO the author also down plays exactly the Russian military capabilities we are now seeing in both Ukraine and Syria that in fact the US cannot match nor right now overcome.

1. the building of A2AD bubbles in Europe that for all practical purposes denies NATO air space movement even in portions of their own air spaces and now even A2AD bubbles in eastern Med and along the Turkish NATO border.

2. a complete A2AD bubble now exists over the entire Black Sea and one over the Baltic

3. a deployed and functioning Russian EW spectrum/equipment that the US military cannot even match until late 2020 if ever at all....right now the US Army cannot even conduct offensive/defensive EW operations without relying on NATO members

4. a thorough and effective information warfare campaign unmatched by either NATO and or the US that is both massive and global

5. an unmatched cyber ability that was combat field tested in downing a complete Ukrainian power grid in Dec 2015 and has not yet been fully discussed in the US MSM

6. the complete fielding and constant combat firing of their SS21s TBMs especially in Syria where they are being fired as much as they fire their artillery...extensive combat firing of their cruise missile arsenal to include one of their newest versions which is air launched

7. massive military expansion into the Artic and the claiming of new territory in the Artic...

7. the conducting of unannounced snap exercises in the range of 40,000 to 90,000 troops that actually exercised nuclear strikes against Sweden, Poland and the Baltics and a ground exercise in 2013 which was a mirror image of the Ukrainian 2014 invasion that we called an incursion....right now the Russian military can go over to a full scale ground offensive of their choosing anywhere along their NATO borders within 24 hours.....AND to trigger then a Article 5 response REQUIRES ALL 28 NATO members signing onto it.....

AND lastly a complete info war aimed to build strong neo right populist political parties in all EU/NATO countries that is gaining traction in five EU countries including Germany

SO just maybe the ....."include clans of former Euro-warriors for whom Russia will always be the adversary" may have gotten it right to begin with........

REMEMBER TWO things .....even with 600B USD in lost oil revenue and sanctions Russia is still basically fighting a two front war and has not for a moment slacked off.........ask the FSA and UAF.....

AND Russia has not since 2008 stopped talking about a European economic zone under Russian hegemony running from the Portuguese coastline to the Russian Far East....coupled with a "new Yalta" granting Russian a sphere of influence over all of Europe.

I will repeat again what I have said here often....Russia is a true existential threat to the US not IS.....

Madhu (not verified)

Tue, 03/08/2016 - 9:59am

In reply to by Madhu (not verified)

So as not to single out the British:

German Diplomacy: Reckless or Clever?

<blockquote>From Yugoslavia to Ukraine, Berlin has often opened crises that the United States must step in to resolve. It might be foolishness. It might also be Machiavellian brilliance.</blockquote:

The always interesting Leon Hadar in The National Interest.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/german-diplomacy-reckless-or-cle…

Yes, yes, I know, we Americans pressure others but the pressure from the other side is less studied, for some reason.

Madhu (not verified)

Tue, 03/08/2016 - 9:54am

Another one who has gone joined the Euro warrior clans of War on the Rocks and other NATO inflected media organs, or trying to balance out a career in the British establishment while holding realist tendencies? The Deep State must be a difficult place to navigate, in all fairness:

THE WEIGHT OF THE PUNCH: BRITISH AMBITION AND POWER

PATRICK PORTER

http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/the-weight-of-the-punch-british-ambiti…

I wanted to reply to the following comment posted under the article but Google is creepy so I decided against it:

<blockquote>I dont see any “China” problem. The China issue arises because the US wants to pivot towards the Asia Pacific and exxtend neoliberal dominance. No problem since the UK wants to reach out to China, Japan, South Korea and others with peaceful, still neoliberal, yet not pivoting and aggressive policies.</blockquote> - "ForcesReviewUK"

Yes, certain factions of the British establishment wish us to pivot back to Europe and practice aggressive--carefully tailored, of course--policies toward Russia.

British exceptionalism. Mature Western leadership is what benefits us but we won't say it outright, we'll write as if it is self-evident and evidence based, too.

Madhu (not verified)

Mon, 03/07/2016 - 9:45am

What a breath of fresh air and a perfect antidote to the hype machine.

<blockquote>Professional American Analysts and Strategists include clans of former Euro-warriors for whom Russia will always be the adversary, and whose hard work helped construct the international coalitions that proved vital to our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.</blockquote>

How beautifully put. For some reason, domestic American lobbying by NATO and the EU is dismissed, aside from the obvious points about NATO expansion. The subtle human connections of a transatlantic elite that work together, have studied together, an entire professional community (not a cabal) dedicated to the preservation of certain connections above all else. Well-intended, I am sure, but with its own peculiar faults.

As for international coalitions, the desire to keep the Russians and the Iranians out by the professional "Euro warriors" meant that China and Pakistan (and the Saudis and their fellow travelers which makes it bizarrely circular back to the US and NATO) were placated at various points along the way.

It's been an eye opening experience for this civilian, the convoluted networks and trying to understand them all.

Excellent piece. I can't think why a renewed Cold War would benefit the American people. I read an article by Ashton Carter from about 2000 or so (Belfer Center, Harvard) that sounded exactly the same about Eastern European missile defense as anything he'd say today. Any event is used as justification to do what various agenda setters wanted to do anyway.