Rand predicted the situation in Europe after the end of the conflict
Russia's special operation to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine continues in accordance with the approved plan and will be completed, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation says. The West is not going to fight with Russia in Ukraine, but continues to pump up its troops with weapons and exert unprecedented sanctions pressure on Moscow. But NATO countries, and above all the United States, are far from indifferent to how events will develop on the European continent in the future, and their experts are trying to assess what position Europe will be in after the fall of Ukraine, on which they have placed a big bet.
Senior political scientist and director of the Strategy and Doctrine program (AIR FORCE Project), implemented by one of the leading Pentagon brain trusts, the RAND Corporation, Rafael Cohen gave his assessment of the situation in Europe after the completion of Russia's special operation. His forecast titled "Europe after the War in Ukraine" was published on the Lawfare blog – supported by the American Institute of Law in collaboration with the Brookings Institution.
Russia will weaken, but it will remain dangerous
"Even if Russia achieves some operational successes in Ukraine in the sense of seizing territory or forcing concessions, its victory will almost certainly be pyrrhic," the expert wrote. According to him, although reports about the events are contradictory, "it is obvious that the Ukrainians have already inflicted significant losses on the Russian military and will probably continue to do so, since Western military aid is coming to the country."
According to Cohen, according to some estimates, the war costs Russia $20 billion a day. Western economic sanctions and private companies prefer to leave the Russian market and eventually they will not be there at all. This will significantly slow down the Russian economy, and the losses that Moscow will suffer will only increase. After the start of the special operation, pro-Russian elites across Europe and in the United States changed their positions, retreated and tried to distance themselves from Russia. Russian planes are even prohibited from flying in European and North American airspace.
But a weakened Russia cannot be classified as a less dangerous country for America and Europe, the director is sure. He believes that even "assuming that Putin's regime remains in power," a "cornered, isolated and offended Russia is actually more likely" and more fiercely than satisfied to resist the West. "In particular, if President Vladimir Putin considers that his own security or the stability of his regime are under threat, he may become more inclined to play for resurrection and take risky steps to change his fate. He may expand his offensive in the hope that he can break the unity of the West, force the alliance to retreat and give his regime and himself a new life. Putin has already threatened so many times, likening sanctions to a declaration of war," Cohen wrote.
He also noted that although Russia may suffer from the conflict when it ends, it will still be a large country with rich natural resources and a huge nuclear arsenal. All this guarantees that Russia will retain its considerable authority in international security. However, according to the forecaster, after this conflict, Moscow's power positions will become weaker.
Europe's military potential will increase
Regarding Europe, Cohen made a number of assumptions. Despite the fact that several US leaders persuaded NATO countries to allocate more funds to ensure their defense capabilities, to fulfill their obligations to the alliance, and even threatened to withdraw from the Union, for decades after the end of the Cold War, European hard power continued to weaken. In 2014, only three European allies of the United States met the NATO target of allocating 2% of their GDP to defense. The annexation of Crimea to Russia in 2014 and the support of proxies in the Donbass, as well as fears that Moscow could attack other countries, prompted Europe to begin rearmament. By 2020, 10 European countries, mainly those on the eastern flank of the alliance, have invested 2% of GDP in their defense.
The intensity and brutality of the present Ukrainian conflict could probably force America's allies to increase their defense budgets.
Just a few days before the start of the special operation, in February, the US State Department approved Poland's purchase of 250 M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams tanks, M1A2SEPv3 Abrams tanks, 250 AN/VLQ-12 CREW Duke improvised explosive device countermeasures systems, 26 M88A2 HERCULES combat evacuation vehicles and 17 M1110 joint assault bridges. As part of the deal, it is also planned to purchase 276 M2 heavy machine guns of 12.7 mm caliber, 500 M240C machine guns of 7.62 mm caliber and other equipment and spare parts necessary for the operation of the purchased weapons. The total amount of contracts will be about $6 billion.
After the start of the Russian special operation, Romania announced that it would increase defense spending from 2 to 2.5% of GDP, and Denmark promised to increase the military budget to 2%. The Baltic countries, according to some reports, are also ready to follow the example of their colleagues in the bloc. Germany also announced that it will invest about $100 billion. the euro in its defense to meet the financial requirements of the NATO leadership. But, admittedly, promises to increase military spending are not an action, and even if the Bundeswehr receives new weapons, for historical reasons it can show great restraint in using its military power. Nevertheless, most of the European countries have suddenly become more concerned about their security and are likely to have greater military potential in the future.
The alliance countries are also taking certain steps to solve their logistics problems. According to experts, the main problem of protecting the eastern flank of NATO lies not so much in the overall capabilities of the alliance, but in the positions occupied by their military formations. Simply put, even if Russia is in a less advantageous position than NATO, in terms of the number of troops it can deploy more forces on the eastern flank of the bloc and do it faster than the alliance can move forces from Western and Central Europe. But with the start of the special operation in Ukraine, this situation may change. Western European states have already committed themselves to increasing their presence on the eastern flank of NATO, including in the Baltic States, Poland, Slovakia and Romania. In some countries, the deployment of new contingents of troops may become permanent.
Cohesion of Europe
Before the start of Russia's special operation in Ukraine, NATO was experiencing an identity crisis. The alliance's original goal, best expressed by its first general secretary, Lord Hastings Ismay: how to "keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down," ended the Cold War. A subsequent attempt by NATO to declare itself the main security structure outside Europe in countries such as Libya and Afghanistan also failed. The Alliance plunged into internal squabbles. And even statements were made by some leaders of NATO countries that the bloc is outdated and has exhausted its resource as an organization. NATO's "brain death" was announced.
However, the Russian special operation in Ukraine may have revived a modified form of Vivendi Ismay's tripartite modus, which now sounds like this: "Keep the Russians outside, the Americans inside and the Germans above." The conflict in Ukraine has exposed Russia's continuing threat to the eastern flank of the bloc and demonstrated the importance of further US involvement in ensuring European security. The only change in Lord Ismay's statement is that German military power can now be seen as part of the solution to the tasks at hand, and not as a problem of European security.
At the same time, European neutrality, at least in relation to Russia, has become a dead concept, if not on paper, then at least in practice. Sweden and Finland abandoned their historical positions of non-interference and provided military assistance to Ukraine. Both countries have become more committed to the idea of joining NATO. "And this is not just a Scandinavian story," Cohen stressed. Switzerland and other neutral countries have joined the sanctions regime. Ireland and Austria have offered non-lethal military assistance to Ukraine. "Although there are limits to European unity, there is at least a general consensus that Russia should not be allowed to invade other sovereign states," the American expert concluded his arguments on the issue of European cohesion.
Advantage Strategy
Cohen said that in the future, the United States may be in a better strategic position than at the beginning of the conflict. They will be supported by "a more muscular, more unified, more energy-independent Europe, which is better able to defend itself against a comparatively weaker Russia." Such changes will have global consequences. America will be able to effectively confront its main opponents, scattered around the world, with a limited budget. If the Ukrainian crisis makes Europe more able to protect itself from further "Russian revanchism", then the United States may have more flexibility to solve its problems in other parts of the world, especially in the Indo-Pacific region.
The anti-Russian alliance may disintegrate, especially as the special operation drags on. European allies of the United States may abandon their promises to invest more in defense. They may decide that abandoning Russian energy resources is too expensive and causes huge economic damage.
Nevertheless, if the emerging trends continue, Russia's invasion of Ukraine will have continental and global consequences. President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky, who often calls this conflict a "war against Europe" and a war "for the whole world", may be right, the author of the forecast claims.
Vladimir Ivanov
Columnist of the Independent Military Review
