How to start an indirect war with Russia

[DARPA]

The American edition of "The National Interest" published an article is interesting military expert Academy of public policy at the Kennan Institute (USA) Michael Coffman "How to start an indirect war with Russia" (Michael Kofman "How to Start a Proxy War with Russia") on whether to US in terms of US interests to supply weapons to Ukraine, and what it can turn around.


photo-day-11_19_14-920-1

US soldiers with ATRA FGM-148 Javelin and car M1151 HMMWV. 2014 (c) thebrigade.com



On Wednesday, February 4, presidential candidate for the post of Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter (Ashton Carter) became nyusmeykrom number one when he said, referring to the Congress that "seriously considering" the beginning of the supply of arms Ukrainian army to fight the pro-Russian rebels.

In this respect, neither Carter alone. Published this week [article published Feb. 5] report "On the preservation of Ukrainian independence and resistance to Russian aggression» (Preserving Ukraine's Independence, Resisting Russian Aggression), which calls for the expansion of US military assistance to Ukraine, facilitate the resumption of discussions within the ruling elite on arms and revaluation of the US role in the conflict in the south-eastern Ukraine. The authors of the report were made known in the past, members of the foreign policy and military departments of the country, including Michele Flournoy (Michele Flournoy), Strobe Talbott (Strobe Talbott) and Steven Pifer (Steven Pifer) and others. As a result, the Obama administration has come under intense political pressure in favor of the revision the current policy of supporting Ukraine. The report can not be ignored due to political influence and experience of its authors. In condensed form, argued the report urges US government to expand the program supplies to Ukraine arms and military equipment in the amount of up to $ 1 billion. Annually. In this range of possible supply includes anti-missile systems, advanced air defense system and a number of technical means for the Ukrainian army.


Carter_speaks_to_the_soldiers_manning_a_Patriot_missile_battery_at_a_Turkish_army_base_near_Gaziantep,_Turkey,_on_Feb_130204-D-NI589-866

Came yesterday in the office of Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter deals with the calculation of the battery of the American Patriot air defense system on the basis of the Turkish Armed Forces near Gaziantep, February 2013 (c) DoD photo by Glenn Fawcett


The report's authors believe that the issue of arms transfers is a litmus test indicates whether the real US support Ukraine in the hour of trial. However, this comparison is not quite adequate. In fact, more than it would be reasonable to provide comprehensive support for Ukraine, but excluding additional transfers of weapons already in politically unstable regions of conflict. Moreover, the supply of weapons advocated by the authors of the report, in the military sense would be ineffective, but can worsen the situation completely. What Kiev really needs is a financial, technical and political support in the solution of vital tasks, including the formation of nascent reform agenda and organization of the political dialogue, which does not allow the country to disintegrate. It is from this position performs German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and a number of other US allies in NATO.

Supply of various weapon systems in Ukraine is unlikely to significantly improve the situation in the Russian unequal confrontation, on the side where the overwhelming superiority, but only plesnet benzinchika the fire of war, whose flame is slowly but surely eats the chances of the young state, choosing the European path of development. Instead, the US should put Ukraine such equipment and supplies that will ensure the survival and further development of the young Ukrainian army, as well as save lives, double the amount of economic aid and assistance to strengthen the reform process in the country. Ukraine needs not so much a weapon as a normal military organization. In the long term, the West should focus on the creation of a viable professional armed forces of Ukraine, as one of the elements of a comprehensive development strategy. It is not excluded, these efforts will be undertaken within the framework of the strategic partnership with Ukraine, which should be the subject of analysis and debate. Themselves on their own, the supply of weapons is not a strategy - either in terms of development of Ukraine, nor in terms of conflict resolution. First and foremost, the United States should focus on a lasting political settlement of the conflict. The above report does not contain recommendations on how to achieve peace, it does not contain it and explanations of how the supply of weapons will contribute to a political settlement of the ongoing armed conflict in the Donbas.

In essence, the report aims to put pressure on President oscillating in order to change its position on the political line of the United States in the Ukrainian crisis, leading to a more active participation of Americans in the conflict. The main idea of ​​the report is that the supply of weapons to Ukraine - even more deadly for Russian soldiers than what is used against them at the moment - will increase the rate of Moscow to an unacceptable level and force Russia to abandon its current policy and refrain from aggression the future. The weakness of the report is that it does not give any idea of ​​how it should look like a new political solution to the current conflict, and how to overcome the consequences of failed agreements in Minsk, but it offers to counter Russian aggression in the spirit of the Afghan war. This document calls on the US to get involved in indirect war with Russia in Ukraine and delivers the latest weapons, at a cost equal to half its current defense budget. Presenting a very significant point of view of the political debate on how best to help Ukraine, it deserves careful analysis.

One of the weaknesses of the report is that the presentation of the list of concerns and anxieties about Russia's territorial claims referred to by the authors through the mechanism of motivation underlying the Russian foreign policy. However, it follows from the analysis of the operation on Russia's Crimea, it was unique in nature and can not be replicated in any other region of Europe. At the same time, Moscow has not shown interest in the sudden invasion of the NATO countries. On the contrary, the old references to the "Russian world" or "New Russia" by now disappeared from the official rhetoric. These Russian ultranationalists are suppressed by the government, which does not intend to sell their ambitions.

Similarly, Russia is not seeking to expand its presence in Ukraine, although it would have the means and methods. Yes, and the report shows that Ukrainian officials say a massive offensive to the opening of a land corridor to the Crimea is extremely unlikely. From the point of view of military experts, it is also unlikely - as in the recent past and now. Russia's actions suggest verified strategy to save manpower and resources aimed at forcing Ukraine to recognize the breakaway separatist regions and the consolidation of Moscow's influence in the country. Shipment of weapons in the conflict zone in Ukraine today can no longer be justified by threats to the beginning of 2014, when Europe was dominated by alarmism and fears of further claims of Russia.

The report also features a hint of the fact that, if the supply of weapons to Ukraine will not be implemented, the credibility of the United States could be undermined, and the resolve of Americans to ensure the security of Ukraine called into question. In fact, the United States have absolutely no obligations to Ukraine in terms of ensuring its security arising from any contracts or were framework agreements, including the Budapest Memorandum. Despite this, the US loudly expressed their support for the new government of Ukraine, the country's territorial integrity and its European choice, providing economic assistance and putting the Ukrainian army of so-called special funds "Non-lethal". It is also doubtful reputation and legitimacy of linking the United States with the provision of military assistance to Ukraine, given that Germany continues to consider the supply of arms mistaken policy. Berlin is not inclined to take part in an indirect war and looking for a political solution. America's reputation is not at stake that should be seen primarily as an object of care evpropeytsev, especially in view of the position of Berlin, who refuses to consider such a policy viable. On the contrary, the reputation of the West in general checked his determination to provide assistance to Ukraine for many years to come, supporting the democratic and European elections in Kiev.


la-fg-ukrainia-mariupol-fighting-20140905

Ukrainian security officials gather what is left of their broken columns under Mariupol (c) Sergei L. Loiko


Recommendations for Ukrainian law enforcers weapons and military equipment is also likely to be ineffective. Experts familiar with the causes of the military defeat of Ukraine to realize that it was not due to a lack of weapons and military equipment, although it certainly has a place everywhere in the Ukrainian army, but because the latter generally unfit for action. There is no system of logistics support, combat training, no experience with the commanders in the chain of command and control battalion-brigade, not a lack of cooperation between the regular armed forces and volunteer units, there is no independent military analysis of the existing problems.
No intelligence, no mobile reserves, there is no unified command, but there is political leadership, which often seems detached from the realities of life on earth. The supply of arms to such operational environment are unlikely to contribute to solving the problems that all the time are fundamental and structural. The only thing that is evident in this conflict - Ukraine has no chance to crush the Russian forces or separatists, and any escalation fraught for Kiev disproportionately losing.

The report states that Ukraine needs a reliable intelligence and reconnaissance in the organization that its estimate of the number involved in the conflict Russian troops fundamentally at odds with the current NATO intelligence. Claimed data on the number of inconsistent and vary greatly depending on with which expert you speak Ukrainian, and, most importantly, do not correspond to the US / NATO.

The only thing agreed NATO and Ukraine on the combat and numerical strength of the troops of the separatists, so it is that the latter are overwhelmingly locals and, apparently, the citizens of Ukraine that completely refutes the main message of the entire report - if the key parties to the conflict are Russian troops, and their de losing serve as a deterrent.

As a rule, NATO estimates on the number of Russian military advisors and specialists who are in a combat zone, no more than a few thousand people, while not having the technical means of Ukrainian intelligence claims about participation in the battles of up to 400 Russian tanks and 10 thousand Russian soldiers .
Flight of fancy is that you would think that Ukraine is fighting the whole Russian armored division, or even two, remaining invisible to the American spy satellites. (It should be noted that the 4th Guards Tank Division of the Russian armed forces has 300 tanks and 12 thousand personnel). Well, and how you can make informed decisions about which weapons supply Kiev, when it is obvious that there do not know what the "Russian forces", where they are and how many are there?

The report also support the strengthening of the country's defense, despite the fact that this is an area, one of the few where the Ukrainian army is fully effective. There - and troop complexes "Wasp" and "Book", and strategic C-200 and C-300. And Russia is not used in this war any combat aircraft, and defense of Ukraine remains a serious problem, even for the modern Russian Air Force in their fresh form.

The report states that during the onset of the separatist Ukrainian law enforcers have the greatest loss of long-range artillery strikes. In this case, immediately claimed that the most essential weapon that could put the United States, it is - portable ATGM Javelin. Yes, these complexes in opposing Russian tanks could really change the situation, but the last in Ukraine in large numbers not seen. Not only that ATRA Javelin - very expensive ($ 250 thousand per set) and is easy to not run in the field (weight 22.6 kg), the problem is that the Russian army is unlikely to agree on the role of whipping boy and simply adapt their tactics.

Javelin ATGM supply may force Russian troops to focus on the long-range system of high caliber that Ukraine would be disastrous. For example, when during the war in Chechnya Russian realized that anti-tank weapons poses a serious threat to armored vehicles, they simply decided to equalize the Terrible to ground fire from artillery systems. The Russian army today - this is not the inept and underfunded structure, which it once was remembered by many. Events in the Crimea indicate that this - efficient army, which under force to carry out complex operations, and it is not taken aback and did not win simply by the fact of its use against a particular weapon system.


MLRS SMERCH

MLRS "Smerch" in step (c) Donetskiy.org


The report is almost no mention of the fact that in response to the supply of Ukrainian military last fall American mobile radar ground artillery reconnaissance to conduct counter-battery fire Russian rebels gave similar system of its own design and production, which nullified any potential advantage of the Ukrainians. Just hushed up and the fact that mobile systems are reactive and tube artillery very little exposed to counter-battery fire.

The real problem lies in the fact that a large part of the ammunition in the possession of Ukrainian military has long expired storage, and the United States have nothing to replace them. Or that Americans have not seen a rapid solution to improve the low level of combat training of Ukrainian servicemen and fill the lack of combat experience. Obama administration officials were right in claiming that any weapons supplied by us Ukrainians, Russian equivalent give an answer that will lead to escalation of the conflict without any benefits for Ukraine.

In the same vein, the report's authors insist on the delivery of Ukrainians light armored vehicles such as HMMWV. This - the same machine on which at one time long laugh themselves and the US military are now to be replaced. In addition, it is doubtful that they too need the Ukraine, which has developed its own defense industry.

Ukraine has a wide experience in the creation of light and heavy armored combat vehicles and has adequate production capacity. This is, in fact, one of the Ukrainian defense competencies, make it a successful exporter of weapons and military equipment. In addition, Ukrainian companies have created several new models that are already put into mass production. In this case, the country still has a huge number of Soviet technology, which can be removed from the conservation and used in combat.

Delivery of defensive weapons systems do not solve the problems of low-level tactical training Ukrainian army and inefficient use of weapons, including the devastating practice of counter-attacks, which cost the Ukrainians lost countless basic T-64BV and armored fighting vehicles of other classes, as well as the inability to retreat at the right time that more than once led to their environment Ukrainian troops separatist forces.

Equally, the need for secure communications media do not alleviate the problem of lack of coordination Ukrainian regular forces and volunteer units in the offensive. They are not able to communicate with each other, not because of lack of radio stations, and in view of the inconsistent policy of the state to mobilize all forces in the defense of the country and complete fragmentation forces participants.

Finally, unmanned aerial vehicles, a known amount of which has been delivered to Germany, will also be ineffective. The report calls on Ukraine to put medium-UAV with long flight class MALE, saying before, that Russian forces used in eastern Ukraine modern air defense system. This is supported by video footage in which, in particular, the types of anti-aircraft missile and gun complexes "Carapace-C1", as well as anti-aircraft missile systems "Tor-M2" and became the infamous "Buk" (from which it was shot down by the Boeing 777, en route flight MH17 on the route Amsterdam - Kuala Lumpur).