Avoid Further Escalation: RAND Corp. Published a New Study*

*Editor’s note: On March 4, Russia enacted a law that criminalizes public opposition to, or independent news reporting about, the war in Ukraine. The law makes it a crime to call the war a “war” rather than a “special military operation” on social media or in a news article or broadcast. The law is understood to penalize any language that “discredits” Russia’s use of its military in Ukraine, calls for sanctions or protests Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It punishes anyone found to spread “false information” about the invasion with up to 15 years in prison.

U.S. political analysts explore various scenarios of a limited Russian attack on the U.S. and its allies; however, they strongly urge Washington not to go to war.

At the end of 2022, the RAND Corporation, one of the largest U.S. think tanks, published a new study called “Responding to a Limited Russian Attack on NATO During the Ukraine War.” The paper outlines a strategy for responding to a possible escalation of the Ukrainian conflict. On the one hand, it is just another attempt to predict future world events, but on the other hand, it is definitely a study worth reading. Izvestia took a closer look at RAND’s recent report.

The Best People of Arlington

RAND Corp. is not simply an analytical center or think tank. There are more than a hundred organizations like this in the U.S. that focus on international affairs. They are supported by powerful businesses, financial institutions and government agencies.

However, RAND is a completely different case. It is well known around the world for its close working relationship with the Pentagon and the CIA, which often commission it to conduct dozens of studies. Many of them are classified and are never published. RAND has an estimated annual budget of $357 million, including some direct funding from U.S. government agencies. Moreover, it’s quite obvious what kind of experts work for RAND.

According to Yuri Rogulev, director of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Foundation for United States Studies at the Moscow State University, RAND experts’ expertise often comes from their experience working for the U.S. Department of Defense.

“RAND Corp. has been conducting research for the U.S. Department of Defense and the CIA for many years. There are many former employees of U.S. government agencies and intelligence services among its staff. This partly explains the size of the RAND’s budget. However, the main source of income for RAND comes from its political influence,” Rogulev explained.

Until the early 2000s, the organization had a special department dedicated to Russian studies, which is now called the RAND Center for Russia and Eurasia. The center employs several hundred people. Its experts once published famous papers with Hollywood-worthy titles like “Assessing Russia’s Decline: Trends and Implications for the United States and the U. S. Air Force” (2002) or “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia: Assessing the Impact of Cost-Imposing Options” (2019), which many Russian politicians and political scientists quote. Their content is still extremely relevant today.

Four Scenarios

Published on Dec. 24, RAND’s recent perspective offers four potential scenarios of a limited Russian attack on the U.S. and its allies. Interestingly enough, each scenario begins with a hypothetical attack launched by the Russian Armed Forces against NATO.

In Scenario A, Russia launches a preemptive strike targeting a NATO warehouse or an empty airfield, which doesn’t cause any military or civilian casualties. In this case, RAND recommends a strictly diplomatic and economic response because a similar attack on Russian infrastructure facilities or a cyberattack could escalate the situation. RAND experts believe that further escalation must be avoided.

Scenario B looks at the U.S. response in the event of a Russian attack on a U.S. intelligence satellite. In this case, RAND experts recommend that Washington and Brussels come up with “a non-kinetic coercive response such as much broader sanctions.”

Scenario C deals with the situation when Russia deliberately strikes NATO airbases in Poland and Romania. This attack will surely result in military and civilian casualties. In this case, RAND experts recommend retaliating with a “less-than-proportional kinetic response” accompanied, once again, by sanctions and international condemnation. However, this response must not provoke the enemy to start a full-fledged war.

In Scenario D, Russia, for some reason, is launching a full-scale attack on NATO installations in Europe, including bases in Ramstein, Germany, and Rotterdam, Netherlands. From the international law point of view, this would be a clear act of aggression. However, RAND offers a restrained, perhaps even half-hearted, response. On the one hand, Washington should try to convince its allies of its unwavering determination to punish Russia, while on the other hand, it should not let Moscow think that a full-scale war has begun.

Rich History

In all four scenarios, Russia attacks the U.S. first. It is hard to imagine that RAND experts do not understand that Russia doesn’t have a single justified reason for striking NATO installations in Europe. From a logical point of view, this is a critically dangerous undertaking; from the point of view of international law, it is an undeniable act of aggression. For this reason alone, it would make sense to look at RAND’s new study from a different angle.

In fact, the U.S. has a rich history of organizing false-flag operations: the sinking of the battleship U.S.S. Maine in Havana in 1898, the Gulf of Tonkin incident that started the Vietnam War in 1964, the Nayirah testimony preceding the invasion of Iraq in 1991 and staged chemical attacks in Syria. All these incidents were made possible with the help of American intelligence agencies and the media.

At the same time, RAND Corp., a leading national defense-oriented think tank, urges Washington to avoid large-scale conflict by all means possible in all four scenarios. “U.S. policy in the war to date has been guided by a clear imperative to avoid a NATO-Russia war. A limited Russian attack on NATO does not invalidate this objective,” RAND experts concluded.

Therefore, it’s reasonable to assume that the recent RAND study lists a number of algorithms that could mitigate the risks of further escalation in Europe. “It is quite possible that RAND’s perspective demonstrates Washington’s understanding that the situation in Ukraine is about to get worse for the U.S.,” Vladimir Vasilyev, senior research fellow at the Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences, told Izvestia.

“Russia will slowly but surely gain an advantage in Ukraine. Consequently, Washington might consider ‘replacing’ the Ukrainian army with NATO troops, in one way or another. At this point, not a single project suggests a diplomatic solution. Washington is expecting the Ukrainian crisis to escalate; however, it should not lead to serious consequences for the West, i.e., nuclear warfare,” Vasilyev concluded.