Nipp

Dr. Mark Schneider
Mark B. Schneider is a senior analyst at the National Institute for Public Policy and a former senior official in the Defense Department. 

Introduction

The concept of a conventional deterrent appeared in President Vladimir Putin’s December 2014 version of “The Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation.”[1] The document states, “In the context of the implementation by the Russia Federation of strategic deterrence measures of a forceful nature, provision is made for the utilization of precision weapons.”[2] This concept was in the context of a nuclear escalation strategy outlined in the same document. In March 2018, Russian Chief of the General Staff General of the Army Valery Gerasimov stated, “In the long term, an increase of capacities of high-precisions weapons, including hypersonic ones, will allow moving the main part of strategic deterrence to the non-nuclear sector from the nuclear one.”[3] Is this real or simply a self-serving effort to make Russia look more reasonable as part of a broader Russian campaign to end the sanctions against it over Ukraine and Syria, end defensive NATO exercises against Russia and terminate the modernization of the U.S. nuclear deterrent?

Unfortunately, the suggestion that Russia has changed its nuclear escalation strategy is wishful thinking at best. As the noted Finnish analyst Katarzyna Zysk has pointed out, “Critics [of the U.S. 2018 NPR] have inaccurately asserted that there is no evidence of the Russian strategy either in doctrinal documents or in exercises, and that a limited nuclear first use (also referred to as the ‘escalate to de-escalate’ concept) cannot be a part of a rational strategy given the risk of a rapid escalation to global nuclear war. They also see Russia’s increasing emphasis on non-nuclear deterrence as supposedly incompatible with relying on a limited nuclear first strike, in line with the fact that Russia’s military doctrine is supposedly ‘defensive’.”[4]

 

Russian Nuclear Doctrine

Russia’s strategy of nuclear escalation (or nuclear “de-escalation” in their terminology) has not changed. Russia reserves the right for nuclear weapons first use in every public version of its Military Doctrine.[5] The nuclear escalation element of Russian military strategy was reiterated by President Putin in his July 2017 decree on the “Fundamentals of the State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Field of Naval Operations for the Period until 2030” which says, “During the escalation of military conflict, demonstration of readiness and determination to employ non-strategic nuclear weapons capabilities is an effective deterrent,” and it requires the Navy to be able to “damage an enemy’s fleet at a level not lower than critical with the use of non-strategic nuclear weapons.”[6] The first use of nuclear weapons in response to chemical or biological attack and conventional attack threatening the existence of the state was reiterated by Putin and his subordinates in March and November 2018.[7]

Reportedly, “…all large-scale military exercises that Russia conducted beginning in 2000 featured simulations of limited nuclear strikes.”[8] Nuclear threats by the most senior Russian officials, including President Putin, are common,[9] and there is substantial evidence that Russia has developed and deployed precision low-yield nuclear weapons to implement its nuclear “de-escalation” strategy.[10] In 2017, then-DIA Director Lieutenant General Vincent Stewart affirmed that Russia is “the only country that I know of that has this concept of escalate to terminate or escalate to deescalate but they do have that built into their operational concept. We have seen them exercise that idea and it’s really kind of a dangerous idea…”[11] He also said that he had seen no evidence that this policy was changing.[12]

 

Conventional Weapons and Russian Military Policy

The Russian “escalate to de-escalate” concept was announced in an October 2003 Russian Defense Ministry publication which stated, “De-escalation of aggression is forcing the enemy to halt military action by a threat to deliver or by actual delivery of strikes of varying intensity with reliance on conventional and (or) nuclear weapons.”[13] It also says “highly-equipped and combat-ready general-purpose forces” are necessary to make “the threat to use nuclear weapons in response to an attack involving conventional armed forces…look convincing.”[14] Recognition of the potential of advanced precision conventional weapons goes back to the Soviet period, but the Soviets made little progress on it.[15]

Unlike nuclear “de-escalation,” the logic of which has been laid out in substantial detail in open Russian doctrinal literature, the concept of conventional “de-escalation” has been left more ambiguous. Russian use of the same language to describe their nuclear and conventional targeting plans reduces its credibility because it masks the fundamental differences between conventional and nuclear weapons in terms of the costs, effects, and consequences. Targeting nuclear and conventional weapons is substantially different.  The more than 100 cruise missiles reportedly employed by the U.S., the UK and France against a few chemical weapons facilities in Syria in 2018 illustrates the very large number of conventional cruise missiles that would be necessary for conventional “de-escalation.”[16]

“Assured destruction” deterrence threats with nuclear weapons are relatively easy; it is much more expensive and far less feasible with conventional weapons. Conventional weapons do not generate the same fear factor, which is central to the Russian “de-escalation” concept. Precision missiles have obvious warfighting advantages.  However, it is unclear how increasing the intensity and geographical scope of conventional strikes will help Russia when NATO is generally regarded to be superior in precision weapons and stealth, and is unlikely to be deterred with Russian use of conventional weapons.

In addition, Dave Johnson, a staff officer in the NATO International Staff Defense Policy and Planning Division, has observed that Russian precision strike weapons systems “…all… are dual-capable or have nuclear analogs.”[17] The 2018 NPR confirmed that Russia “is also building a large, diverse, and modern set of non-strategic systems that are dual-capable (may be armed with nuclear or conventional weapons).”[18] An important 2013 Military Thought article suggested that Russia’s decision concerning how many of its cruise missiles were to be reserved for the conventional and  nuclear missions would be made just before the conflict.[19]

In January 2017, General of the Army Sergei Shoigu stated that deterrence may eventually shift from nuclear to non-nuclear weapons due to “precision-guidance weapons.”[20] Yet, in the same month, he also said that the development of its strategic nuclear force was Russia’s first priority, declaring Russia will “continue a massive program of nuclear rearmament, deploying modern ICBMs on land and sea, [and] modernizing the strategic bomber force.”[21] As Dave Johnson has noted, “Russian leaders have consistently identified modernization of the nuclear forces as the number one priority even as they pursued conventional precision strike capabilities.”[22]

In November 2017, General Shoigu stated that by 2020 the Russian goal was, “To strengthen the combat potential of the Strategic nuclear forces, to continue perfecting the system of comprehensive provision and combat control. To bring the strategic non-nuclear forces to a level enabling neutralization of military threats to Russia and assured protection of the country’[s] national interests.”[23]

When General Gerasimov announced that in “the long term” Russia would increase the “part of strategic deterrence to the non-nuclear sector from the nuclear one,” he said that the, “President announced measures that are being assumed in this field in his address to the Federal Assembly on March 1.”[24] Amazingly, the most notable aspect of Putin’s March 1^st speech was his five new nuclear weapons, not conventional precision strike weapons.[25] Based upon what Putin and other Russian officials have openly said, Russian press reports, and the Nuclear Posture Review, it appears that four of Putin’s five systems are nuclear only and the fifth is nuclear capable.[26] This hardly represents a shift to conventional systems and subordination of nuclear capabilities.

In December 2018, General Gerasimov announced that in its supposed response to a U.S. missile defense capability, “Russia was increasing the combat potential of its ground-based strategic nuclear forces” by rearming its forces with the Yars ICBM, the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle, developing the Sarmat heavy ICBM, improving its nuclear bombers, and putting its missile submarines on Arctic “combat patrols,” making only a passing reference to precision weapons.[27]

Western commentary on Russian pursuit of conventional deterrence generally involves discussion of the new Russian “conventional” cruise missiles. Yet, the Russians almost always talk about “precision weapons”, not “precision conventional weapons,” perhaps because they are dual capable. President Putin, other Russian officials and the Russian state media have said openly that the Kh-101, the Kh-555, the Kinzhal hypersonic missile and Kalibr missile are nuclear capable and the 2018 NPR says that the Kh-32 (also Russian state media),[28] the SSC-8, the Iskander-M (also the Russian Defense Ministry)[29 and Russia’s CRBMs (Close Range Ballistic Missiles) are nuclear capable.[30]

In January 2018, the Commander of the Russian Navy Admiral Vladimir Korolyov stated, “The Navy General Command will particularly focus on forming strategic non-nuclear deterrence groups that will include vessels armed with long-range precision weapons…”[31] However, he also put Russia’s new strategic nuclear Borey submarines at the top of his current priority list.[32] Notably absent were precision land-attack missiles.

 

Conclusion

Noted former Russian officials Alexey Arbatov and Andrei Kokoshin have suggested “the role of precisions weapons is to offer the option of being used as one additional step on the ladder to nuclear deterrence, making it into a ‘pre-nuclear’ deterrent.”[33] This makes sense because it is obviously safer to win at a lower level of violence. However, as Dave Johnson has pointed out, “Barring capitulation, nuclear employment would follow…”[34]

Russia will continue to modernize its entire armed forces although likely at a slower rate than it claims. The issue is not really about “deterrence.”  A main function of the Russian military today is to dominate Russia’s neighbors.  Russia appears already to have achieved the capability to quickly mass 100,000 troops on weakly defended NATO borders.[35] However, it may be unable to hold seized NATO territory without the threat of nuclear escalation.36] This is apparently the scenario played out in Zapad-2017.[37]  Russia’s pursuit of precision conventional capabilities and the priority it places on nuclear capabilities are not in opposition, they are mutually reinforcing.

Despite several Russian claims about moving toward conventional deterrence, nuclear weapons are its first priority.  Russia seeks asymmetric capabilities to deter a NATO counter attack and that strongly suggests nuclear weapons. Russia is not going to attempt to match overall NATO conventional capabilities because this is impossible in light of the very large difference in GNP, manpower and technology and Putin’s continuing economic failures. Instead, Russia can and will continue to exploit its nuclear weapons advantages for coercion because it can easily compete in the nuclear arena.

[1].      “The Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation,” Translation from Russian, Approved by the President of the Russian Federation on December 25, 2014, No. Pr.-2976, Press Release, June 29, 2015, Embassy of the Russian Federation to the United Kingdom, available at https://rusemb.org.uk/press/2029.

[2].     Ibid.

[3].    “Army; Improvement of hypersonic weapons to allow moving main part of strategic deterrence to non-nuclear sector – General Staff Chief,” Interfax, March 30, 2018, available at https://dialog.proquest.com/professional/.

[4].    Katarzyna Zysk, “Escalation and Nuclear Weapons in Russia’s Military Strategy,” The RUSI Journal, Vol. 163, No. 2 (May 25,2018), p. 6, available at https://doi.org/10.1080/03071847.2018.1469267.

[5].     Mark B. Schneider, “Putin’s Plan to Send Russians to Heaven,” Real Clear Defense, December 1, 2018, available at https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/12/01/putins_plan_to_send_russians_to_heaven_113995.html.

[6].    Decree of the President of the Russian Federation, “Fundamentals of the State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Field of Naval Operations for the Period until 2030,” Translated by Anna Davis, (New Port News, RI.: Russia Maritime Studies Institute, U.S. Navy War College, July 20, 2017), pp. 12, 16, available at https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/gpo88179/RMSI_RusNavyFundamentalsENG_FINAL%20(1).pdf?sr=b&si=DNNFileManagerPolicy&sig=i110Z1rxZVzKbB%2BdHJ1CZuTxvwL3N7W34%2FLpksgT1Bs%3D.

[7].   “Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly,” The Kremlin, March 1, 2018, available at http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/56957.; “US tried to get classified data on Russian missiles with claims of INF Treaty violation – deputy FM,” RT, November 26, 2018, available at https://www.rt.com/russia/444901-us-russia-inf-missile-data/.

[8].  Ibid.; Nikolai N. Sokov, “Why Russia calls a limited nuclear strike ‘de-escalation’,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 13, 2014, available at https://thebulletin.org/why-russia-calls-limited-nuclear-strike-de-escalation.

[9].    Keith B. Payne, “United States Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Testimony,” NIPP.org, July 25, 2012, pp. A-1-A-5.

[10].     For more information and documentation see Mark B. Schneider, “Deterring Russian First Use of Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons, Real Clear Defense, March 12, 2018, available at https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/ 2018/03/12/deterring_russian_first_ use_of_low-yield_nuclear_weapons_113180.html.; “Obama Advisor Gary Samore, ‘The Ball is Very Much in Tehran’s Court’,” Radio Free Europe, April 14, 2011, available at http://www. rferl.org/content/interview samore_ russia_iran_us_policy/3557326.html.

[11].    DIA Director Lieutenant General Vincent Stewart  as quoted in, Hearing to Receive Testimony on Worldwide Threats (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Senate, May 23, 2017), p. 38, available at https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/17-49_05-23-17.pdf.

[12].   Ibid, p. 39.

[13].  The Defense Ministry of the Russian Federation, “The Priority Tasks of the Development of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation,” RedStars.org, 2003, p. 70, available at http://red-stars.org/doctrine.pdf.

[14].   Ibid., p. 51.

[15].    Defense Intelligence Agency, Russia Military Power Building a Military to Support Great Power Aspirations, (Washington D.C.: Defense Intelligence Agency, 2017), p. 34, available at http://www.dia.mil/Portals/ 27/ Documents/News/Military%20Power%20 Publications/Russia%20.Military%20Power%20Report%202017.pdf.

[16].   Julian Borger and Peter Beaumont, “Syria: US, UK and France launch strikes in response to chemical attack,” The Guardian, April 14, 2018, available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/14/syria-air-strikes-us-uk-and-france-launch-attack-on-assad-regime.

[17].  Dave Johnson, Russia’s Conventional Precision Strike Capabilities, Regional Crises, and Nuclear Thresholds (Livermore:  Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, February 2018), p. 57, available at https://cgsr.llnl.gov/content/assets/docs/Precision-Strike-Capabilities-report-v3-7.pdf.

[18]. Department of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review (Washington, D.C.:  U.S. Department of Defense, February 2018), p. 30.

[19].   A.A. Protasov et. al., “Russia: Concept for Long-Range High-Precision Weapons Employment in Military Operations volume 4, Military Thought, May 8, 2013, available at https://dialog.proquest.com/professional/.

[20].    “Development of precision-guidance weapons may shift deterrence factor to non-nuclear field – Shoigu,” Interfax. January 12, 2017, available at https://dialog.proquest.com/professional/.

[21].   Pavel Felgenhauer, “Kremlin Learning to Navigate Washington’s New Unpredictability,” Eurasia Daily Monitor Vol. 14. No. 3 (January 19, 2017), available at https://jamestown.org/program/kremlin-learning-navigate-washingtons-new-unpredictability/.

[22].  Johnson, Russia’s Conventional Precision Strike Capabilities, Regional Crises, and Nuclear Thresholds, op. cit., p. 38.

[23]. Army; Strategic non-nuclear forces to gain capability to neutralize military threats by 2020 – Shoigu,” Interfax, November 8, 2017, available at https://dialog.proquest.com/professional/.

[24]. “Capacity of weapons unveiled by Putin will rise – Chief of Russia’s General Staff,” TASS, March 24, 2018, available at http://tass.com/defense/995920.

[25].  “Putin: my nuclear bombs cannot be stopped: Russian leader stakes claim for a new term as president as he trumpets deadly new arsenal of hi-tech weapons,” The Daily Telegraph, March 2, 2018, available at https://dialog.proquest.com/professional/.

[26]. “Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly,” The Kremlin, March 1, 2018, op. cit.: Nikolai Litovkin, “What major weapons Russian military will get in 2018,” Russia Beyond the Headlines, January 19, 2018, available at https://www.rbth.com/science-and-tech/327726-new-russian -weapons.; “Sarmat ICBM: 8 Megatons at Hypersonic Speeds, Arriving 2 Years Ahead of Schedule,” Sputnik News, January 19, 2018, available at https://sputniknews.com/military/201609071045062797-sarmat-ahead-of-schedule-analysis/.; Lynn Berry and Vladimir Isachenkov, “Kremlin-controlled TV airs ‘secret’ plans for nuclear weapon,” Associated Press, November 12, 2015, available at http://bigstory.ap.org/article aaa75e4bb6e84d52948b9e6d827 5c71d/kremlin-controlled-tv-airssecret-plans-nuclear-weapon.; “Russia to use SS-19 ICBMs as carriers for Avangard hypersonic glide vehicles — source,” TASS, March 20, 2017, available at http://tass.com/defense/995167.

[27]. “Russia boosting its nuclear forces’ potential due to US missile shield, TASS, December 5, 2018, available at http://tass.com/defense/1034414.; “Chief of General Staff General of the Army Valery Gerasimov holds briefing for foreign military attaches,” Russian Federation Defense Ministry, December 5, 2018, available at http://eng.mil.ru/en/newspage/country/more.htm?id=12206849@egNews.

[28].       “Winged Snipers: Best of the Best of Russia’s Ballistic and Cruise Missiles,” Sputnik News, December 23, 2017, available at https://sputniknews.com/military/201712231060272064-russian-air-launched-ballistic-cruise-missiles/.; Nikolai Litovkin, “New Russian cruise missiles to hit targets from the stratosphere,” Russia Beyond the Headlines, August 30, 2016, available at https://www.rbth.com/defence/2016/08/30/new-russiancruise-missiles-tohit-targets-from-the-stratosphere_625441.

[29]. “Army Brigade To Be Equipped With Iskander Systems This Year –Commander,” ITAR TASS, September 29, 2009, available at https://dialog.proquest.com/professional/.; “Ground Forces Personnel Will Be Armed With Iskanders,” Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye, October 29, 2009, available at https://dialog.proquest.com/professional/.

[30].  “Meeting with Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu,” Kremlin.ru, December 8, 2015, available at http://en.kremlin. ru/events/president/news/50892.; Nuclear Posture Review, op. cit., pp. 8, 53.; Sergei Bogatinov, “Interview to ‘Echo Moskvy,’” Echo Moskvy, November 21, 2009, available at www.echo.msk.ru/programs/voensovet/635231-echo.phtml.; “Russia: First Tu-22M3M bomber due 2018, 30 to be upgraded,” BBC Monitoring FormerSoviet Union, May 21, 2017, available at https://dialog.proquest.com/professional/.

[31]. “Russian Navy to focus on strategic non-nuclear deterrence – Commander-in-Chief,” TASS, January 1, 2018, available at http://tass.com/defense/983872.

[32]. Ibid.

[33].       Katarzyna Zysk, “Nonstrategic nuclear weapons in Russia’s evolving military doctrine,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, August 22, 2017, available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2017.1362908.

[34].       Johnson, Russia’s Conventional Precision Strike Capabilities, Regional Crises, and Nuclear Thresholds, op. cit., p. 51.

[35]. The Secretary General’s Annual Report 2015 (Brussels: NATO, January 2016), p. 18, available at http://www.nato.int/nato staticfl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_01/20160128_SG_AnnualReport_2015_en.pdf.; Dave Majumdar, “Russia’s Half-Baked Air War in Syria,” The National Interest, October 6, 2015, available at https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-half-baked-air-war-syria-14022.

[36].       Adrian Bradshaw, “The latest security challenges facing NATO,” RUSI, February 20, 2015, available at https://www.rusi.org/go.php?structureID=videos&ref=V54E7621089708#.VTFlcJN4d0T.

[37].      Mark B. Schneider, “Zapad-2017: A Major Russian War Against NATO, Again,” Real Clear Defense, October 6, 2017, available at https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/10/06/zapad-2017majorrussianwaragainstnato_ again_112441.html.

 

The views in this Information Series are those of the authors and should not be construed as official U.S. Government policy, the official policy of the National Institute for Public Policy or any of its sponsors.  For additional information about this publication or other publications by the National Institute Press, contact:  Editor, National Institute Press, 9302 Lee Highway, Suite 750 |Fairfax, VA 22031 | (703) 293-9181 |www.nipp.org.  For access to previous issues of the National Institute Press Information Series, please visit https://nipp.org/national-institute-press/information-series/.

 

© National Institute Press, 2018