Conversations about how far the United States would go to subvert Russia in the event of an invasion have revived the specter of a new Cold War.
WASHINGTON — For years, U.S. officials have tiptoed around the question of how much military support to provide to Ukraine, for fear of provoking Russia.
Now, in what would be a major turnaround, senior Biden administration officials are warning that the United States could throw its weight behind a Ukrainian insurgency should President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia invade Ukraine.
How the United States, which just exited two decades of war in Afghanistan, might pivot to funding and supporting an insurgency from fighting one is still being worked out. But even a conversation about how far the United States would go to subvert Russian aims in the event of an invasion has revived the specter of a new Cold War and suddenly made real the prospect of the beginnings of a so-called great power conflict.
In Afghanistan, the United States showed itself to be dismal at fighting insurgencies. But when it comes to funding them, military experts say it is a different ballgame.
President Biden has not determined how the United States might arm insurgents in Ukraine who would conduct what would amount to a guerrilla war against Russian military occupation. Nor is it clear what Russia’s next move might be, or whether Mr. Putin intends to launch a cyberattack. On Friday, hackers brought down several Ukrainian government websites, after days of talks between Russia and the West about the crisis.
But Biden administration officials have begun signaling to Russia, which has massed about 100,000 troops at its borders with Ukraine, that even if it managed to swiftly capture territory, Mr. Putin would eventually find the costs of an invasion prohibitively expensive in terms of military losses.
“If Putin invades Ukraine with a major military force, U.S. and NATO military assistance — intelligence, cyber, anti-armor and anti-air weapons, offensive naval missiles — would ratchet up significantly,” said James Stavridis, a retired four-star Navy admiral who was the supreme allied commander at NATO. “And if it turned into a Ukrainian insurgency, Putin should realize that after fighting insurgencies ourselves for two decades, we know how to arm, train and energize them.”
He pointed to American support for the mujahedeen in Afghanistan against the Soviet invasion there in the late 1970s and 1980s, before the rise of the Taliban. “The level of military support” for a Ukrainian insurgence, Admiral Stavridis said, “would make our efforts in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union look puny by comparison.”
Both Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III and Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have warned their Russian counterparts in recent telephone calls that any swift Russian victory in Ukraine would probably be followed by a bloody insurgency similar to the one that drove the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. In discussions with allies, senior Biden officials have also made clear that the C.I.A. (covertly) and the Pentagon (overtly) would both seek to help any Ukrainian insurgency.
Administration officials interviewed this week said that plans to help Ukrainian insurgents could include providing training in nearby countries that are part of NATO’s eastern flank: Poland, Romania and Slovakia, which could enable insurgents to slip in and out of Ukraine. Beyond logistical support and weapons, the United States and NATO allies could also provide medical equipment, services and even sanctuary during Russian offensives. The United States would almost certainly supply weapons, the officials said.
Since Russia invaded Crimea in 2014, successive U.S. administrations have taken pains to limit military support to Ukraine largely to defensive weaponry. The United States has provided about $2.5 billion in military aid to Kyiv, including anti-tank missiles and radar that enables the Ukrainian military to better spot sources of artillery fire. The assistance has also included patrol boats and communications equipment.
The United States is also moving toward providing Ukraine with battlefield intelligence that could help the country more quickly respond to an invasion, senior administration officials said.
But all of that aid has been calibrated not to provoke Mr. Putin, officials said. If Russian troops crossed the border, the officials said, the United States could offer offensive weaponry and training.
“Given the right equipment and tactics, Ukraine can dramatically reduce the chances of a successful invasion,” a former Ukrainian defense minister, Andriy P. Zagorodnyuk, wrote in an op-ed for the Atlantic Council on Sunday that reads like an instructional manual for how the United States can support an insurgency. “By combining serving military units with combat veterans, reservists, territorial defense units and large numbers of volunteers, Ukraine can create tens of thousands of small and highly mobile groups capable of attacking Russian forces. This will make it virtually impossible for the Kremlin to establish any kind of administration over occupied areas or secure its lines of supply.”
But it is difficult to know whether Ukrainians would be willing to start an insurgency campaign that could drag on for years or even decades. Some Ukraine experts point to Crimea, where there has been little armed resistance since Russia invaded. And Mr. Putin could limit his siege to the eastern parts of Ukraine, which lean more pro-Russian than the west.
A Western military adviser to the Ukrainians said that details of a specific resistance there remained a closely held secret. But already, particularly in the west, Ukrainians are joining territorial defense forces that train in guerrilla tactics.
The Biden administration and its NATO allies want to capitalize on any distaste the Russian body politic might have for troop casualties, U.S. and European officials said in interviews. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss planning.
Funding and supporting an insurgency is difficult, defense planners and military experts said. It requires developing a long-game mind-set and keeping up morale among fighters in the face of a state-sanctioned enemy that is backed by heavy weaponry.
Russian retaliation against Ukrainian insurgents is likely to be “swift, direct and very brutal,” said Seth G. Jones, the director of the international security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It’s likely to get bloody.”
Mr. Jones also suggested that Russia might start to build some type of wall along Ukraine’s borders with NATO countries, putting a new Iron Curtain in place.
But Evelyn N. Farkas, who was the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia in the Obama administration, when Russia invaded Crimea, recalled a debate at the time about how tough the United States could be with Russia without provoking further action. Eight years later, she noted that Mr. Putin is still threatening the country’s sovereignty.
In an interview, she said that this time around, “I think the gloves should come off.”
Yeh that’s a real good idea, after you m f
there’s already going to be a massive insurgency if war happens.
Let’s compare Ukraine to all the places attacked in the last 30 40 years by Russia (And the Former Soviet Union, which included Ukraine at the time). That’s basically Afganistan, Georgia, Chechnya, Dagestan and to some extent Syria, although the latter is like a 4 or 5 way conflict with them there at the behest of the Syrian regime.
Ukraine is the largest country wholly in europe, with one of it’s largest populations, it’s heavily armed, both from its pre-existing large military which has only been getting larger, and better eversince they were -attacked-. and their population largely hates Moscow. Not just for Crimea, but anyone who understands the history between RU and UA knows that while they have a shared culture and history, it’s also been a history of abuse. Corruption, theft of resources, destruction of culture and language. and outright genocide.
The Ukrainian nation has faced arguably even worse levels of attack on their identity than the Polish, Balts and other former Russian territories from the last millenium. in short, they like many eastern european nations have one hell of a greivance with Moscow and are not about to take it lying down just because some meathead revanchist thinks Ukraine is a fake country.
​
all of this is even before considering that at bare minumum, its almost gauranteed that there will be a flood of weapons and volunteers into Ukraine if Russia dares attack, think of what happened to Finland in the 1930s. And NATO or not, Im not totally discounting the possibility that some countries like Poland may wish to help Ukraine directly. Like I said there’s lots of countries who have a justified disdain for Moscow.
Long story short, the Ukrainians will already put up one hell of a fight, and according to some of the documents and interviews leaked below, the USA (and some NATO countries) are preparing to give them a blank cheque of material support to fighting them off too.
Putin is an intelligent, if conniving man, but if he thinks he’s going to get anything short of Afghanistan on steroids if he attacks Ukraine, he’s a dumb man.
Maybe Ukrainians should start a retreat in neighbouring countries and evacuate most vulnerable cities already. Atm, Russians are already at advantage due to terrain and superior numbers.
5 comments
They won’t.
Conversations about how far the United States would go to subvert Russia in the event of an invasion have revived the specter of a new Cold War.
WASHINGTON — For years, U.S. officials have tiptoed around the question of how much military support to provide to Ukraine, for fear of provoking Russia.
Now, in what would be a major turnaround, senior Biden administration officials are warning that the United States could throw its weight behind a Ukrainian insurgency should President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia invade Ukraine.
How the United States, which just exited two decades of war in Afghanistan, might pivot to funding and supporting an insurgency from fighting one is still being worked out. But even a conversation about how far the United States would go to subvert Russian aims in the event of an invasion has revived the specter of a new Cold War and suddenly made real the prospect of the beginnings of a so-called great power conflict.
In Afghanistan, the United States showed itself to be dismal at fighting insurgencies. But when it comes to funding them, military experts say it is a different ballgame.
President Biden has not determined how the United States might arm insurgents in Ukraine who would conduct what would amount to a guerrilla war against Russian military occupation. Nor is it clear what Russia’s next move might be, or whether Mr. Putin intends to launch a cyberattack. On Friday, hackers brought down several Ukrainian government websites, after days of talks between Russia and the West about the crisis.
But Biden administration officials have begun signaling to Russia, which has massed about 100,000 troops at its borders with Ukraine, that even if it managed to swiftly capture territory, Mr. Putin would eventually find the costs of an invasion prohibitively expensive in terms of military losses.
“If Putin invades Ukraine with a major military force, U.S. and NATO military assistance — intelligence, cyber, anti-armor and anti-air weapons, offensive naval missiles — would ratchet up significantly,” said James Stavridis, a retired four-star Navy admiral who was the supreme allied commander at NATO. “And if it turned into a Ukrainian insurgency, Putin should realize that after fighting insurgencies ourselves for two decades, we know how to arm, train and energize them.”
He pointed to American support for the mujahedeen in Afghanistan against the Soviet invasion there in the late 1970s and 1980s, before the rise of the Taliban. “The level of military support” for a Ukrainian insurgence, Admiral Stavridis said, “would make our efforts in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union look puny by comparison.”
Both Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III and Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have warned their Russian counterparts in recent telephone calls that any swift Russian victory in Ukraine would probably be followed by a bloody insurgency similar to the one that drove the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. In discussions with allies, senior Biden officials have also made clear that the C.I.A. (covertly) and the Pentagon (overtly) would both seek to help any Ukrainian insurgency.
Administration officials interviewed this week said that plans to help Ukrainian insurgents could include providing training in nearby countries that are part of NATO’s eastern flank: Poland, Romania and Slovakia, which could enable insurgents to slip in and out of Ukraine. Beyond logistical support and weapons, the United States and NATO allies could also provide medical equipment, services and even sanctuary during Russian offensives. The United States would almost certainly supply weapons, the officials said.
Since Russia invaded Crimea in 2014, successive U.S. administrations have taken pains to limit military support to Ukraine largely to defensive weaponry. The United States has provided about $2.5 billion in military aid to Kyiv, including anti-tank missiles and radar that enables the Ukrainian military to better spot sources of artillery fire. The assistance has also included patrol boats and communications equipment.
The United States is also moving toward providing Ukraine with battlefield intelligence that could help the country more quickly respond to an invasion, senior administration officials said.
But all of that aid has been calibrated not to provoke Mr. Putin, officials said. If Russian troops crossed the border, the officials said, the United States could offer offensive weaponry and training.
“Given the right equipment and tactics, Ukraine can dramatically reduce the chances of a successful invasion,” a former Ukrainian defense minister, Andriy P. Zagorodnyuk, wrote in an op-ed for the Atlantic Council on Sunday that reads like an instructional manual for how the United States can support an insurgency. “By combining serving military units with combat veterans, reservists, territorial defense units and large numbers of volunteers, Ukraine can create tens of thousands of small and highly mobile groups capable of attacking Russian forces. This will make it virtually impossible for the Kremlin to establish any kind of administration over occupied areas or secure its lines of supply.”
But it is difficult to know whether Ukrainians would be willing to start an insurgency campaign that could drag on for years or even decades. Some Ukraine experts point to Crimea, where there has been little armed resistance since Russia invaded. And Mr. Putin could limit his siege to the eastern parts of Ukraine, which lean more pro-Russian than the west.
A Western military adviser to the Ukrainians said that details of a specific resistance there remained a closely held secret. But already, particularly in the west, Ukrainians are joining territorial defense forces that train in guerrilla tactics.
The Biden administration and its NATO allies want to capitalize on any distaste the Russian body politic might have for troop casualties, U.S. and European officials said in interviews. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss planning.
Funding and supporting an insurgency is difficult, defense planners and military experts said. It requires developing a long-game mind-set and keeping up morale among fighters in the face of a state-sanctioned enemy that is backed by heavy weaponry.
Russian retaliation against Ukrainian insurgents is likely to be “swift, direct and very brutal,” said Seth G. Jones, the director of the international security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It’s likely to get bloody.”
Mr. Jones also suggested that Russia might start to build some type of wall along Ukraine’s borders with NATO countries, putting a new Iron Curtain in place.
But Evelyn N. Farkas, who was the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia in the Obama administration, when Russia invaded Crimea, recalled a debate at the time about how tough the United States could be with Russia without provoking further action. Eight years later, she noted that Mr. Putin is still threatening the country’s sovereignty.
In an interview, she said that this time around, “I think the gloves should come off.”
Yeh that’s a real good idea, after you m f
there’s already going to be a massive insurgency if war happens.
Let’s compare Ukraine to all the places attacked in the last 30 40 years by Russia (And the Former Soviet Union, which included Ukraine at the time). That’s basically Afganistan, Georgia, Chechnya, Dagestan and to some extent Syria, although the latter is like a 4 or 5 way conflict with them there at the behest of the Syrian regime.
Ukraine is the largest country wholly in europe, with one of it’s largest populations, it’s heavily armed, both from its pre-existing large military which has only been getting larger, and better eversince they were -attacked-. and their population largely hates Moscow. Not just for Crimea, but anyone who understands the history between RU and UA knows that while they have a shared culture and history, it’s also been a history of abuse. Corruption, theft of resources, destruction of culture and language. and outright genocide.
The Ukrainian nation has faced arguably even worse levels of attack on their identity than the Polish, Balts and other former Russian territories from the last millenium. in short, they like many eastern european nations have one hell of a greivance with Moscow and are not about to take it lying down just because some meathead revanchist thinks Ukraine is a fake country.
​
all of this is even before considering that at bare minumum, its almost gauranteed that there will be a flood of weapons and volunteers into Ukraine if Russia dares attack, think of what happened to Finland in the 1930s. And NATO or not, Im not totally discounting the possibility that some countries like Poland may wish to help Ukraine directly. Like I said there’s lots of countries who have a justified disdain for Moscow.
Long story short, the Ukrainians will already put up one hell of a fight, and according to some of the documents and interviews leaked below, the USA (and some NATO countries) are preparing to give them a blank cheque of material support to fighting them off too.
Putin is an intelligent, if conniving man, but if he thinks he’s going to get anything short of Afghanistan on steroids if he attacks Ukraine, he’s a dumb man.
Maybe Ukrainians should start a retreat in neighbouring countries and evacuate most vulnerable cities already. Atm, Russians are already at advantage due to terrain and superior numbers.