Russian tanks

© AP
Russian tanks in drills at the Kadamovskiy firing range in the Rostov region in southern Russian federation
Jan. 12, 2022

In a contempo press briefing held on the occasion of a visit to Moscow by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about continued NATO expansion, and the potential consequences if Ukraine was to join the trans-Atlantic alliance. He said:

"Their [NATO's] main task is to contain the development of Russia. Ukraine is only a tool to achieve this goal. They could draw us into some kind of armed disharmonize and force their allies in Europe to impose the very tough sanctions that are being talked about in the United states today. Or they could draw Ukraine into NATO, set up upward strike weapons systems at that place and encourage some people to resolve the issue of Donbass or Crimea by force, and still draw usa into an armed disharmonize."

Putin connected:

"Let united states of america imagine that Ukraine is a NATO member and is stuffed with weapons and there are state-of-the-fine art missile systems just like in Poland and Romania. Who will stop information technology from unleashing operations in Crimea, permit alone Donbass? Let usa imagine that Ukraine is a NATO member and ventures such a combat operation. Practise we have to fight with the NATO bloc? Has anyone thought anything about it? It seems not."

But these words were dismissed by White Firm spokesperson Jen Psaki, who likened them to a fox "screaming from the top of the hen business firm that he'southward scared of the chickens," adding that any Russian expression of fear over Ukraine "should non be reported as a statement of fact."

Psaki'due south comments, however, are divorced from the reality of the state of affairs. The principal goal of the regime of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is what he terms the " de-occupation" of Crimea. While this goal has, in the by, been couched in terms of affairs - "[t]he synergy of our efforts must force Russian federation to negotiate the render of our peninsula," Zelensky told the Crimea Platform, a Ukrainian forum focused on regaining control over Crimea - the reality is his strategy for render is a purely military ane, in which Russia has been identified as a "military antagonist", and the accomplishment of which can only be achieved through NATO membership.

How Zelensky plans on accomplishing this goal using military ways has not been spelled out. As an ostensibly defensive alliance, the odds are that NATO would not initiate whatsoever offensive armed forces activity to forcibly seize the Crimean Peninsula from Russia. Indeed, the terms of Ukraine'southward membership, if granted, would need to include some linguistic communication regarding the limits of NATO'southward Commodity 5 - which relates to collective defense - when addressing the Crimea situation, or else a state of war would de facto exist upon Ukrainian accretion.

The most likely scenario would involve Ukraine beingness rapidly brought under the 'umbrella' of NATO protection, with 'battlegroups' similar those deployed into eastern Europe being formed on Ukrainian soil as a 'trip-wire' force, and mod air defenses combined with frontward-deployed NATO aircraft put in place to secure Ukrainian airspace.

Once this umbrella has been established, Ukraine would experience emboldened to begin a hybrid conflict against what it terms the Russian occupation of Crimea, employing unconventional warfare adequacy it has acquired since 2015 at the hands of the CIA to initiate an insurgency designed specifically to "kill Russians."

The idea that Russia would sit idly by while a guerilla war in Crimea was being implemented from Ukraine is ludicrous; if confronted with such a scenario, Russian federation would more than probable utilize its own unconventional capabilities in retaliation. Ukraine, of course, would weep foul, and NATO would be confronted with its mandatory obligation for collective defense under Article 5. In short, NATO would exist at war with Russia.

This is not idle speculation. When explaining his contempo decision to deploy some 3,000 US troops to Europe in response to the ongoing Ukrainian crunch, United states President Joe Biden declared:

"As long as he'south [Putin] acting aggressively, we are going to make certain we reassure our NATO allies in Eastern Europe that we're at that place and Article v is a sacred obligation."

Biden'due south comments repeat those fabricated during his initial visit to NATO Headquarters, on June 15 last year. At that time, Biden sat downwards with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg and emphasized America's commitment to Article v of the NATO charter. Biden said:

"Commodity 5 we have as a sacred obligation. I desire NATO to know America is there."

Biden'southward view of NATO and Ukraine is fatigued from his feel as vice president under Barack Obama. In 2015, then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Piece of work told reporters:

"As President Obama has said, Ukraine should ... be able to choose its own future. And nosotros reject whatever talk of a sphere of influence. And speaking in Republic of estonia this by September, the president fabricated it clear that our commitment to our NATO allies in the face of Russian aggression is unwavering. Equally he said it, in this alliance in that location are no old members and there are no new members. There are no junior partners and there are no senior partners. At that place are just allies, pure and elementary. And we will defend the territorial integrity of every single marry."

Just what would this defense entail? Equally someone who once trained to fight the Soviet Army, I can adjure that a war with Russia would be unlike anything the U.s.a. military machine has experienced - ever. The United states military is neither organized, trained, nor equipped to fight its Russian counterparts. Nor does it possess doctrine capable of supporting large-calibration combined arms conflict. If the US was to exist drawn into a conventional basis war with Russia, it would notice itself facing defeat on a scale unprecedented in American armed forces history. In brusk, it would be a rout.

Don't take my word for it. In 2016, and then-Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, when speaking about the results of a study - the Russia New Generation Warfare - he had initiated in 2015 to examine lessons learned from the fighting in eastern Ukraine, told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington that the Russians have superior artillery firepower, better gainsay vehicles, and have learned sophisticated use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for tactical outcome.

"Should US forces observe themselves in a land war with Russia, they would be in for a rude, cold awakening."

In short, they would get their asses kicked.

America'southward xx-year Middle Eastern misadventure in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria produced a military that was no longer capable of defeating a peer-level opponent on the battleground. This reality was highlighted in a written report conducted by the US Army's 173rd Airborne Brigade, the key American component of NATO'south Rapid Deployment Force, in 2017. The study found that US military forces in Europe were underequipped, undermanned, and inadequately organized to face up armed services aggression from Russian federation. The lack of viable air defense and electronic warfare capability, when combined with an over-reliance on satellite communications and GPS navigation systems, would result in the piecemeal devastation of the United states of america Regular army in rapid order should they face off against a Russian military that was organized, trained, and equipped to specifically defeat a The states/NATO threat.

The issue isn't just qualitative, but also quantitative - even if the U.s.a. military could stand toe-to-toe with a Russian adversary (which it can't), information technology only lacks the size to survive in any sustained boxing or campaign. The low-intensity conflict that the U.s. military waged in Iraq and Afghanistan has created an organizational ethos built around the thought that every American life is precious, and that all efforts will be made to evacuate the wounded so that they can receive life-saving medical attention in as brusque a timeframe equally possible. This concept may have been viable where the United states was in control of the surround in which fights were conducted. It is, even so, pure fiction in large-scale combined arms warfare. There won't exist medical evacuation helicopters flying to the rescue - fifty-fifty if they launched, they would be shot down. There won't be field ambulances - fifty-fifty if they arrived on the scene, they would be destroyed in curt social club. There won't be field hospitals - even if they were established, they would be captured past Russian mobile forces.

What there will be is death and destruction, and lots of it. Ane of the events which triggered McMaster's study of Russian warfare was the destruction of a Ukrainian combined arms brigade by Russian artillery in early 2015. This, of course, would be the fate of any similar U.s.a. combat formation. The superiority Russian federation enjoys in artillery fires is overwhelming, both in terms of the numbers of arms systems fielded and the lethality of the munitions employed.

While the US Air Force may be able to mount a fight in the airspace above any battlefield, in that location will exist aught like the total air supremacy enjoyed by the American military in its operations in Iraq and Transitional islamic state of afghanistan. The airspace will exist contested past a very capable Russian air force, and Russian footing troops will be operating nether an air defense umbrella the likes of which neither the United states of america nor NATO has ever faced. There will be no close air support cavalry coming to the rescue of beleaguered American troops. The forces on the ground will exist on their ain.

This feeling of isolation will be furthered by the reality that, because of Russia's overwhelming superiority in electronic warfare capability , the Us forces on the ground will exist deaf, dumb, and blind to what is happening around them, unable to communicate, receive intelligence, and even operate every bit radios, electronic systems, and weapons terminate to function.

Any state of war with Russia would find American forces slaughtered in large numbers. Back in the 1980s, we routinely trained to have losses of 30-40 percent and continue the fight, considering that was the reality of mod gainsay against a Soviet threat. Back then, we were able to finer match the Soviets in terms of force size, structure, and adequacy - in short, we could give equally practiced, or ameliorate, than we got.

That wouldn't be the case in whatsoever European war against Russia. The US volition lose most of its forces before they are able to shut with whatsoever Russian antagonist, due to deep artillery fires. Even when they close with the enemy, the advantage the US enjoyed against Iraqi and Taliban insurgents and ISIS terrorists is a thing of the past. Our tactics are no longer upwardly to par - when there is close combat, information technology will be extraordinarily violent, and the United states of america volition, more than times than non, come up out on the losing side.

But even if the U.s. manages to win the odd tactical engagement against peer-level infantry, it simply has no counter to the overwhelming number of tanks and armored fighting vehicles Russian federation will bring to bear. Even if the anti-tank weapons in the possession of US basis troops were constructive against modernistic Russian tanks (and feel suggests they are probably non), American troops will simply be overwhelmed past the mass of combat force the Russians volition confront them with.

In the 1980s, I had the opportunity to participate in a Soviet-style assault carried out past specially trained The states Ground forces troops - the 'OPFOR' - at the National Training Center in Fort Irwin, California, where two Soviet-mode Mechanized Infantry Regiments squared off against a US Army Mechanized Brigade. The fight began at around 2 in the morning. By five:30am it was over, with the United states of america Brigade destroyed, and the Soviets having seized their objectives. There's something about 170 armored vehicles bearing down on your position that makes defeat all just inevitable.

This is what a state of war with Russian federation would expect similar. It would non be limited to Ukraine, but extend to battlefields in the Baltic states, Poland, Romania, and elsewhere. It would involve Russian strikes against NATO airfields, depots, and ports throughout the depth of Europe.

This is what will happen if the Us and NATO seek to adhere the "sacred obligation" of Article v of the NATO Charter to Ukraine. It is, in brusk, a suicide pact.

About the Author:
Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of 'SCORPION Male monarch: America'southward Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.' He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf's staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a Un weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter