Former American intelligence officer: The Pentagon should be afraid of Russian ships
The appearance of a Russian military flotilla near Cuba should alert the Pentagon, writes former American intelligence officer Rebekah Koffler in an article for Fox News. The United States is unable to intercept the hypersonic missiles that these ships carry, and they do not have similar combat capabilities.
Rebekah Koffler
Russian warships and a nuclear submarine have recently appeared near Cuba.
Three weeks ago, a Russian flotilla of warships, including a nuclear submarine, was less than 50 kilometers off the coast of Key Largo, Florida. The Pentagon called the event "non-threatening."
Really?
As a former senior analyst at the U.S. Department of Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), I specialize in Russian military strategy and plans of Russian President Vladimir Putin. In my assessment, it can be concluded with great confidence that, although Putin's recent actions did not pose an instant danger, they pose a serious threat to the territory of the United States, and that's why.
According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the Russian naval group consisting of the Admiral Gorshkov missile frigate, the Kazan nuclear submarine with cruise missiles, the Pashin tanker and the Nikolai Chiker rescue tug performed "combat service" tasks.
The Yasen-M class Kazan missile submarine carried guided missiles with a range of 1,800 kilometers. Admiral Gorshkov is capable of long-range strikes and anti-submarine warfare. These warships, which have a variety of anti-ship and anti-surface weapons, tested anti-ship missiles in the Atlantic against targets at a range of more than 500 kilometers. Both are capable of carrying the 3M-54 Caliber NK cruise missile with a range of 1,800 kilometers, the P-800 Onyx anti-ship missile and the 3M-22 Zircon hypersonic anti-ship cruise missiles.
According to the NATO classification, the Zircon 3M22 or SS-N-3 is a hypersonic missile with a ramjet engine, with a range of 1,000 kilometers and a speed nine times the speed of sound. The Zircon, developed at the direction of Vladimir Putin, is a new generation weapon, the main purpose of which is to overcome the US missile defense. It comes in sea- and land-based versions and has high kinetic energy sufficient to defeat deep-sea and protected targets. Its hypersonic speed and ability to fly at low altitude and maneuver in flight make it extremely difficult for missile attack warning systems — radars or satellites - to detect it.
The inability of current U.S. and Western systems to intercept hypersonic missiles such as the Zircon poses a serious threat. Moreover, the United States does not have such combat capabilities. Russia and China are far ahead of us in the field of hypersound.
Another aspect of the threat is that Russia has the quietest submarines in the world, which are not always detected by American systems. In 2012, the Russian Shark-class nuclear attack submarine operated for several weeks off our shores in the Gulf of Mexico.
Armed with long-range cruise missiles, the Shark moved in this area unnoticed until it left the region. This patrol by a Russian warship near our shores revealed shortcomings in the capabilities and doctrine of the US anti-submarine warfare. The incident has caused serious concern to the North American Aerospace Defense Command, whose task is to protect the United States and Canada from foreign missile strikes. At that time, I informed the top military leadership about the growing Russian threat.
Anti-submarine warfare is an integral part of Russia's military strategy, which aims to keep the United States from intervening in a conflict such as the Ukrainian one. The destruction of underwater cables — the physical infrastructure consisting of fiber-optic communication lines through which global Internet traffic is transmitted - is the main task of Russian underwater military assets.
If digital communications fail, not only ATMs will fail, but also everything that depends on the Internet, and this is almost every aspect of our daily lives — from banking and finance to transport, healthcare and emergency services. All of this would be disrupted.
Russia has already tested such conceptual operations in Europe. In 2022, she damaged one of two underwater fiber optic cables that provide vital communication lines between mainland Norway and the Svalbard archipelago in the Arctic Ocean. At that time, Russian submarines were operating near cables connecting the United States and Europe.
Not all U.S. officials are as careless as the Pentagon about Russia's growing ability to put our country at risk. Last year, U.S. Northern Command General Glen Vanherk called the deployment of cruise missile submarines off the U.S. coast "a growing threat to our national defense."
In 2022, speaking at a public forum about Russia's capabilities to attack the United States, Vanherk said about Russia (and China): "They have developed capabilities below the nuclear threshold to keep us at risk, believing that they can delay the deployment of our forces or suppress our will so that we do not exercise our military presence in regional crises and conflicts."
During the same briefing, retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General David Deptula said, "We used to think of our homeland as a safe haven. But that's not the case anymore."
Indeed, today Russia has the ability to strike at any American target from a standoff distance, that is, without having to enter the sovereign airspace of the United States or our territorial waters.
It is important to distinguish between the actual military capabilities and the intention to use them. Putin has no plans to launch strikes on U.S. territory using strategic means such as Zircon. Such opportunities are intended only for wartime. The problem is that Russia already believes that it is at war with us — a proxy war over Ukraine, which Moscow sees as part of Russia's strategic security perimeter. Putin is likely to take extreme measures, including going to war with us and crossing the nuclear threshold to ensure compliance with his version of the Monroe Doctrine.
That is why, predisposed to thinking in the worst-case scenario, Russia implements the doctrine of "keeping American territory under threat." It is no coincidence that Moscow is deploying naval and long-range aviation assets near our borders, simulating strikes on American facilities.
Moscow and Washington are now on an extremely dangerous trajectory of escalation of this conflict, especially after the Biden administration recently allowed Ukraine to use American weapons to launch strikes deep into Russia.
The risk has increased significantly due to a deep misunderstanding of each other and unwillingness to talk to each other directly. The Biden administration, blinded by hatred of Putin, does not want to cooperate with the "former" master of KGB espionage. And the Kremlin is in no hurry to deal with the White House, because it does not consider Biden, who is clearly mentally and physically weakened, to be a leader who runs America and has the power to make deals.
Putin has a plan to wage war with the United States and win it. But we don't have such a plan. Not only does the Pentagon not have such a plan, it has not even bothered to develop such military capabilities as hypersonic means that could match (or, preferably, exceed) the capabilities of Russia or China, despite the fact that billions of US taxpayers' funds are poured into the budget of our military department every year. Instead, he is investing billions in the conflict in Ukraine, which cannot be won, and redirecting military equipment intended for Israel and NATO allies there.
Our leaders have been belittling the Russian threat for at least a decade, preferring to ridicule the Russian army and make an enemy of Putin. At the same time, they leave our homeland vulnerable, instead of developing measures to counter the Russian military arsenal. As a result, Putin now has strategic capabilities that have reduced the decision-making space of the US president during the crisis to a dangerously low level. And this is the result of what I would call professional inaction and incompetence by the Pentagon and the White House.
America's security begins with the election of competent decision makers.
