Russian Strategy For Escalation Management

This paper assesses the evolution in Russian military strategy on the question of escalation management, or intra-war deterrence, across the conflict spectrum from peacetime to nuclear war. Russia’s overarching approach to deterrence, called “strategic deterrence,” represents a holistic concept for shaping adversary decision making by integrating military and non-military measures. Key concepts in Russian military thinking on deterrence include deterrence by fear inducement, deterrence through the limited use of military force, and deterrence by defense. These approaches integrate a mix of strategic nonnuclear and nuclear capabilities, depending on the context and conflict scope. In a conflict, Russian escalation management concepts can be roughly divided into periods of demonstration, adequate damage infliction, and retaliation. Russian strategic culture emphasizes cost imposition over denial for deterrence purposes, believing in forms of calibrated damage as a vehicle by which to manage escalation. This so-called deterrent damage is meant to be dosed, applied in an iterative manner, with associated targeting and damage levels. Despite acquiring nonnuclear means of deterrence, Russia continues to rely on nuclear weapons to deter and prosecute regional and large-scale conflicts, seeing these as complementary means within a comprehensive strategic deterrence system. The paper summarizes debates across authoritative Russian military-analytical literature beginning in 1991 and incorporates translated graphics and tables. The concluding section discusses implications for US and allied forces.

This report offers an overview of the main debates in Russian military thought on deterrence and escalation management in the post-Cold War period, based on authoritative publications. It explores discussions by Russian military analysts and strategists on “regional nuclear deterrence,” namely the structure of a two-level deterrence system (regional and global); debates on “nonnuclear deterrence” and the role of strategic conventional weapons in escalation management; as well as writings on the evolution of damage concepts toward ones that reflect damage that is tailored to the adversary. Russian military thinking on damage informs the broader discourse on ways and means to shift an opponent’s calculus in an escalating conflict. The report concludes with summaries of recent articles that reflect ongoing discourse on the evolution of Russia’s strategic deterrence system and key trends in Russian military thought on escalation management.

From a globally renowned expert on Russian military strategy and national security, The Russian Way of Deterrence investigates Russia's approach to coercion (both deterrence and compellence), comparing and contrasting it with the Western conceptualization of this strategy. Strategic deterrence, or what Dmitry (Dima) Adamsky calls deterrence à la Russe, is one of the main tools of Russian statecraft. Adamsky deftly describes the genealogy of the Russian approach to coercion and highlights the cultural, ideational, and historical factors that have shaped it in the nuclear, conventional, and informational domains. Drawing on extensive research on Russian strategic culture, Adamsky highlights several empirical and theoretical peculiarities of the Russian coercion strategy, including how this strategy relates to the war in Ukraine. Exploring the evolution of strategic deterrence, along with its sources and prospective avenues of development, Adamsky provides a comprehensive intellectual history that makes it possible to understand the deep mechanics of this Russian stratagem, the current and prospective patterns of the Kremlin's coercive conduct, and the implications for policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic.

"In August 2008, long-standing Russia-Georgia tensions erupted into armed hostility and disproportionate counter aggression in large part due to a failure of United States' escalation management strategy in the region. The U.S. failed to effectively manage the crisis is several ways. It inadvertently escalated the crisis by not anticipating Russian reactions to Kosovo independence and NATO enlargement with respect to Russia's desire to maintain its sphere of influence. Furthermore, the U.S. failed to deter Russian escalation and military buildup immediately preceding the war by sending diplomatic signals with no reinforcing military posture. Finally, the U.S. failed to deter Georgia (its ally in the conflict) from being baited into initiating military action. This paper provides a short overview of the run up to the conflict and briefly explains key ideas and terms in the escalation management model as described by Morgan et al in Dangerous Thresholds: Managing Escalation in the 21st Century. Subsequently, the paper analyzes facts and U.S. decision making during the crisis using the escalation management model. For each tenant of the model applied to key events leading up to and during the fighting, the paper highlights strategic missteps, their consequences and potential alternative courses of action. Because it enjoys the clarity of hindsight, the purpose of the paper is not to assign blame. Rather, the goal is to highlight how escalation management model can be used to better control similar situations in the future."--Abstract.

Soviet perceptions of U.S. strategy remained remarkably consistent from the post-Stalin period through the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union itself. The consistency of the Soviet tendency to engage in the 'mirror-image' fallacy in their analyses of U.S. doctrine and strategic intentions has profound implications for the future relationship of the U.S. and the now-independent republics. This authoritative volume analyzes the Soviet/Russian perspectives of U.S. strategic evolution from the declaration of the 'massive retaliation' doctrine of 1954 through the Soviet collapse of 1991.The Soviets considered the growth of their strategic nuclear arsenal as the main factor giving them political leverage over U.S. foreign policy and predicted that a defense policy based on strategic defense would be the most effective deterrent from a Soviet perspective. Now the Russian military and political leadership places a high value on strategic nuclear forces in terms of political leverage and prestige.Building upon a wide variety of international sources, the Lockwoods offer a penetrating assessment of how the present Russian perspective will affect political relationships, not only with the U.S. and the West, but also among the independent republics. This factor will become ever more critical as they vie for decentralized versus unified control of what was the Soviet nuclear arsenal under the shadow of the collapsing economies. The authors also introduce a new theory concerning the future impact of ballistic missile defense on operational warfare in light of the U.S. experience in Operation Desert Storm. The Russian View of U.S. Strategy provides a comprehensive historical context and an up-to-date appraisal of an uncertain and potentially volatile development in U.S.-Russian relations. It will be of interest to historians, policymakers, and military analysts.

Understanding Russia’s grand strategy can help U.S. decisionmakers assess the depth and nature of potential conflicts between Russia and the United States and avoid strategic surprise by better-anticipating Moscow’s actions and reactions. The authors of this report review Russia’s declared grand strategy, evaluate the extent to which Russian behavior is consistent with stated strategy, and outline implications for the United States.

“This is a brilliant and hardheaded book. It will frighten those who prefer not to dwell on the unthinkable and infuriate those who have taken refuge in stereotypes and moral attitudinizing.”—Gordon A. Craig, New York Times Book Review Originally published more than fifty years ago, this landmark book explores the ways in which military capabilities—real or imagined—are used, skillfully or clumsily, as bargaining power. Anne-Marie Slaughter’s new introduction to the work shows how Schelling’s framework—conceived of in a time of superpowers and mutually assured destruction—still applies to our multipolar world, where wars are fought as much online as on the ground.

Russia is a post-communist country struggling to adapt to the modern world economically and politically. In the twenty-first century, Russia faces postmodern social, cultural, and political problems with its old policy of deterrence. For Russia's political leaders and military planners, three scenarios define their postmodern setting: 1) the world's leading military and economic powers, with the exception of China, are market-based economies and political democracies; 2) the revolution in military affairs, based on advances in information, electronics, and communications, is driving both civil and military technology innovation; and 3) the Cold War's fundamental war-fighting premises, such as deterrence based on nuclear weapons and on conventional armed forces organized and trained for massive wars of attrition, have changed radically. These points' implications for future Russian strategy are profound, Stephen J. Cimbala and Peter Rainow argue. Russia faces an increased presence of its former adversary, the United States, in adjacent territories; an increasingly assertive NATO, which includes many of Moscow's former allies; and continued fighting in Chechnya. Ominously, China aspires to overtake Russia as the world's second-ranked military power and establish its hegemony over the Pacific basin. In short, Russia confronts a radically new political and military world order that demands adapting to postmodern thinking about deterrence and defense. The danger is that Russia, realizing that it lags behind in leveraging modern technology for military purposes and that it must scrap its dependence on conscription, now relies on nuclear weapons as its first line of deterrence against either nuclear or conventional attack.

This open access volume surveys the state of the field to examine whether a fifth wave of deterrence theory is emerging. Bringing together insights from world-leading experts from three continents, the volume identifies the most pressing strategic challenges, frames theoretical concepts, and describes new strategies. The use and utility of deterrence in today’s strategic environment is a topic of paramount concern to scholars, strategists and policymakers. Ours is a period of considerable strategic turbulence, which in recent years has featured a renewed emphasis on nuclear weapons used in defence postures across different theatres; a dramatic growth in the scale of military cyber capabilities and the frequency with which these are used; and rapid technological progress including the proliferation of long-range strike and unmanned systems. These military-strategic developments occur in a polarized international system, where cooperation between leading powers on arms control regimes is breaking down, states widely make use of hybrid conflict strategies, and the number of internationalized intrastate proxy conflicts has quintupled over the past two decades. Contemporary conflict actors exploit a wider gamut of coercive instruments, which they apply across a wider range of domains. The prevalence of multi-domain coercion across but also beyond traditional dimensions of armed conflict raises an important question: what does effective deterrence look like in the 21st century? Answering that question requires a re-appraisal of key theoretical concepts and dominant strategies of Western and non-Western actors in order to assess how they hold up in today’s world. Air Commodore Professor Dr. Frans Osinga is the Chair of the War Studies Department of the Netherlands Defence Academy and the Special Chair in War Studies at the University Leiden. Dr. Tim Sweijs is the Director of Research at The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies and a Research Fellow at the Faculty of Military Sciences of the Netherlands Defence Academy in Breda.

During the night of February 23, 2022, Russian forces crossed into Ukraine, seeking to capture Kyiv within days. A few hours later, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the beginning of a “special military operation.” In his speech, the Kremlin leader warned those who tried to stand in Russia’s way that they would face “never seen” consequences – a statement many interpreted as a thinly veiled threat to employ nuclear weapons. Our analytical bottom line is that, compared to 2022, Russia’s nuclear rhetoric has toned down. In this fourth issue of the chronology we analysed all statements of the past five months, from February 2023 until June 2023. Both escalatory statements we identified in this time period concerned the Russian stationing of nuclear weapons in Belarus. Otherwise, the tensions remained at the level of warnings, spotted with a few de-escalatory statements. Overall, with only two escalatory statements from Moscow, Russia’s nuclear rhetoric was less threatening compared to the five months prior which saw eight Russian and one Western escalatory statements.