Washington's Playbook for Destabilizing Russia - Part 1 - The Non-military Options

One of Washington's most influential think tanks, in part, because it is heavily funded by the U.S. government as shown here:

 

...and here:

 

...published a fascinating research brief back in 2019 on how Washington could destabilize Russia, a subject that is particularly pertinent given the ongoing military operations in Ukraine:

 

 

In this brief, the authors note that Russia remains a powerful nation that still manages to be a peer competitor to the United States in several key areas.  While observing that "some level of competition with Russia is inevitable", RAND assessed "cost-imposing options" that could unbalance and overextend Russia.  These options would ideally place heavier burdens on Russia than would be imposed on the United States.  Since this report is copyrighted (even though taxpayers have funded it), I will not be able to supply you with screen captures of the information included.

 

The authors outline a total of six cost-imposing options as follows with each option be assessed using three metrics; the likelihood of success in extending Russia, the benefits and costs/risks of each option.  For the purposes of the first part of this two part posting, we will examine RAND's three recommended non-military cost-imposing options.

 

1.) Economic cost-imposing options which includes expanding U.S. energy production, imposing deeper trade and financial sanctions, increasing Europe's ability to import natural gas from non-Russia suppliers and encouraging the emigration of skilled labor and well-educated youth from Russia.

 

With Washington putting pressure on the Nordstream 2 natural gas pipeline, Europe has few options for importing natural gas other than importing LNG from the United States, a move that plays right into the hands of the American oil industry, a substantial supporter of Washington's political class.  As Europe has found out this winter, there are significant unforeseen economic consequences to an energy shortage.

 

Here is a table showing the likelihood of success, benefits and costs/risks of each option:

2.) Geopolitical cost-imposing options which includes providing lethal aid to Ukraine, increase support to Syrian rebels, promoting liberalization in Belarus, expanding ties in the South Caucasus, reduce Russian influence in Central Asia, flip Transnistria and expel Russian troops from the region.

 

Here is a brief quote from the report on the Ukraine option which seems prescient:

 

"Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability. But any increase in U.S. military arms and advice to Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing commitment without provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have significant advantages."

 

As Washington found out the hard way, prolonged military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq can prove to be non-winnable and extremely costly, a lesson that Moscow could have taught the political class in the Capitol after its own experience in Afghanistan.  As well, Washington should have learned that supporting rebels is not a workable option after its own support for the rebels in 1980s Afghanistan led directly to the formation of al-Qaeda.

 

Here is a table showing the likelihood of success, benefits and costs/risks of each option:

 

3.) Ideological and informational cost-imposing options which includes diminishing faith in the Russian electoral system, creating the perception that is not pursuing the public interest, encouraging domestic protests and other non-violent resistance, undermining Russia's image abroad.

 

Ironically, the first two of these options seem to be playing out in the United States now!  Given the close and growing geopolitical ties between Russia and China, it is highly likely that any efforts by Washington to discredit Russia will have exactly the opposite effect, pushing the two most likely heirs of global supremacy closer together.

 

Here is a table showing the likelihood of success, benefits and costs/risks of each option:

 

 

Let's close this posting.  RAND is obviously a very politically connected global policy think tank despite claiming that it is non-partisan.  It exists to serve its political masters/funders in Washington and it would appear that it is highly influential in the hallowed halls of the ruling class.  Like the vast majority of politicians, RAND sees the world through the eyes of America's global supremacy and seems to advise its political masters as such, seemingly with no ability to understand that every action that Washington imposes on the global stage has a series of unintended consequences that ripple through the geopolitical ecosystem.

  

In part 2 of this posting, we will examine RAND's recommended military cost-imposing options that could destabilize Russia and remove it as a threat to Washington's global hegemony and both reestablish and reaffirm the unipolar world.