Ukraine Special 02 - Defining Strategic Goals

Dear friends, family and colleagues,

As promised in my last blog, it’s time for a new special. A very important one, because we are rapidly approaching a climax in this conflict. NATO members are now sending in very heavy weapons. Yesterday it was revealed that my country, the Netherlands, will be sending Pzh-2000 Howitzers, this is the most advanced artillery in the world and can have devastating consequences for the Russians. The Russian army is in serious danger of reaching breaking point soon and this will have implications that will shake the security balance for the 21^st century. Although NATO members are now sending in very heavy and advanced weaponry, NATO as a whole should still do one more thing: namely defining the strategic goal.

Like when you start a project or start writing an essay, you should always start with a goal or a research question. When you fight a war, you need to have a strategic objective alike. Although totally unrealistic to reach them, Russia defined strategic goals when invading, namely the total conquest of Ukraine. For NATO it’s unclear right now what they want to achieve with the arms deliveries. Is it to make sure Ukraine can survive? Is it to inflict as much as damage as possible on the Russians? Do they want to destroy the Russian army?

Let me be clear about this: the strategic goals of NATO should be:

1.       total annihilation of Russia on the battlefield

2.       total expulsion of Russia from the territory of Ukraine

3.       In case the circumstance allow it: total disarmament of Russia as a nuclear power

I know the third one is a bold statement, but that’s exactly what this special will be about. And it has a personal start. In 1998, Russia sank into a deep, deep economic crisis. This was the ultimate accumulation of the disastrous ’90’s decade for Russia. Russia suffered the following

1.       The dramatic collapse of society and economy after the collapse of the Soviet-Union

2.       A very dramatic defeat in the First Chechen war, where Russian forces were humiliated in a similar way as in the current Ukraine conflict.

3.       Russia’s withdrawal from the world stage due to its inability to formulate a global policy approach

The government of then Boris Yeltsin, who was famous for his open alcoholism and clownish behaviour was intensely to blame for that. The economic crisis of 1998 was the climax and got very close to a civil war. As a young boy of 14 years old, I was watching the state news broadcast (NOS) and it was mentioned that Russia could potentially be split up in five to six smaller states. This has always been a scenario for any Russian ruler that lingers in the background. For those who think that Alexei Navalny will ever be president of a democratic Russia, I have to disappoint you: Navalny will never be president of Russia in its current form. It’s simply to big to be governed like a modern democracy. Large parts of it operate on a medieval tribal basis, with the north-Caucasus as the best example, but also areas like Tatarstan and Buryatia. In case Russian territory needs to be transformed to a democracy, it will have to split up in smaller states and some parts will never become a democracy.

In that news broadcast in 1998 that left a deep impression on me as a young boy, it was mentioned that the United States has a plan in place to send large numbers of special forces to Russia in the event of a descent of Russia into anarchy and chaos. The goal of such an intervention would be to secure Russia’s nuclear weapons, transport them to the United States and demolish production and storage facilities on Russian territory. The United States has many of these so called Operational Plans (OPLAN’s). The existence of a similar plan for Pakistan’s nuclear was revealed when Pakistan was under serious threat of being overrun by the Taliban in the late 2000’s.

I never imagined that what was mentioned in the NOS news broadcast would ever become a serious option. Over the years, it faded away deep in my brain storage and I never considered it a serious option. However, during the last weeks Russia’s battlefield losses have reached absolute insane levels. I totally think Ukraine’s official number of 21.000 Russians killed is a low tally. Especially on the Donbass front lines and Mariupol, I expect the battlefield casualties to be way higher. In the north, Russia’s best battlefield units have been wiped out of existence. In other words: the future of the Russian army as a viable armed force, comes into danger.

Already reports from Zaporizhia oblast, indicate that Russian units started mutinies. These were only put down when Chechen soldiers killed three Russian soldiers. This will only increase in the future. I expect many more rebellions and there are hardly any Russian battlefield units left on Russian territory. I think it’s extremely likely that in the coming months, parts of Russian territory will descend into chaos and there won’t be any Russian armed force available to control the situation, let alone to supress the unrest. I also doubt that this will be the moment that Putin will be removed. A more likely scenario is that Putin becomes one of the warlords on the territory of the Russian Federation fighting for control.

So for the first time since that 1998 news broadcast, I see a less than one percent change that United States special forces will move in during the descendance of Russia into chaos to secure its nuclear weapons. To make it clear: the only circumstance when this scenario may happen, is during a descend of Russia into chaos. Very likely it won’t include the capturing of all nuclear weapons at once, but most likely the Americans will make deals with Russian generals that will be more favourable to the cause or simply can be bribed into surrendering the nukes.

Where I think the first two of the strategic goals can be realistically achieved, the third option should be a secondary objective. Russia under Putin has proven it should not be in the possession of nuclear weapons and in case even the slightest opportunity arises, we should take the momentum to rid Russia of its nuclear weapons and remove it from the international stage as a major player.

So is there any evidence with regards to this? Well, to be honest there’s not much to back it up. The only indications that the Americans are indeed preparing for such a scenario, are the intense flights of US RC-135S Cobra Ball planes in the entire airspace around Russia. Cobra Ball planes are so called nuclear sniffers where they can detect nuclear radiation among other surveillance. Where I initially thought, they were monitoring potential Russian launch site activities, I think it’s now more plausible that they are mapping targets of opportunity for intervention. Especially since I think the chances of an actual Russian nuclear strike are diminishing by the day.

Manu Gómez on Twitter: "I can't recall seeing two Cobra Balls operating together on the same mission. -USAF RC-135S Cobra Ball DOLLY27 -USAF RC-135S Cobra Ball SUMO11 https://t.co/iRVagLeggg" / Twitter

So what will be the implications of a nuclear weapon free Russia? It means that we can start remodelling the security landscape of the 21^st century. It means that the United States can lower its stockpile of nuclear weapons to a minimum deterrence force of lets say one thousand nuclear weapons. It means that nuclear stockpiles can be lowered to such a point that they are there for deterrence, but that they are no longer a threat to the survival of the human race.

I know, big statements and I think the chance of this scenario happening is less than one percent, but in case it happens, the 21st century will be changed forever (for the best)

Best regards and "Slava Ukraini!"

Niels