Ignoring Russia’s Massive Military

As tensions with Russia continue to escalate, recognizing the dramatic increase in its’ military strength becomes vitally important.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) notes that “Russia has embarked on a military modernization program funded by rapidly increasing military spending and has pursued a more assertive foreign policy…Russian military expenditure has grown significantly over the past two decades. It increased by 30 per cent in real terms between 2010 and 2019 and by 175 per cent between 2000 and 2019.”

The actual impact of Moscow’s military spending must be seen in light of a key reality, SIPRI emphasizes: “Military goods and services cost less in Russia than in the USA or most of Europe and, therefore, that Russian military spending has a higher purchasing power. For example, unlike the USA and other large European states, Russia still relies on conscription. In addition, Russian career soldiers have lower salaries: for example, in 2019 a Russian lieutenant colonel received approximately $1330 per month, whereas a (lower-ranked) captain in the British Army received more than $4000 monthly… Over the decade 2010–19 Russia spent nearly 40 per cent of its total military expenditure on arms procurement. This is a much larger share than most other states, including all members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This means that, in absolute terms, Russia’s spending on procurement was more than twice that of France, Germany and the UK, although its total military spending was just 30–34 per cent higher in 2019.”

While significant attention has been paid, particularly in light of the Ukraine crisis, to the Kremlin’s land forces, the cold war-like emphasis on nuclear weaponry must be carefully noted.

The Heritage Institute reports that “Russia is clearly seeking to gain a competitive nuclear advantage over the U.S.” Not only is Putin seeking to gain a global nuclear dominance, he is using atomic weapons as an economical means to win land battles. “Russia has a stockpile of at least 2,000 non-strategic (low-yield) nuclear weapons (NSWs) that are unconstrained by any treaty, outnumbering U.S. NSWs by at least 10 to one. In 2019, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reported that Russia’s stockpile is anticipated to grow even more. Russia operates dozens of dual-capable delivery systems, including short-range ballistic missiles, depth charges, torpedoes, land mines, artillery, and mortars. This disparity is particularly concerning because Russia’s recent nuclear doctrine indicates a lower threshold for use of nuclear weapons. According to the United States’ 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, Russia “mistakenly assesses that the threat of nuclear escalation or actual first use of nuclear weapons would serve to ‘de-escalate’ a conflict on terms favorable to Russia.”

Some in Congress, including Republican Mike Rogers (R-AL), House Foreign Affairs Committee Lead Republican Michael McCaul (R-TX), and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Lead Republican Mike Turner (R-OH) are issuing heated warnings.

“As Russia assembles forces for what would be the largest land war in Europe since WWII, Vladimir Putin is overseeing a massive strategic exercise to demonstrate the Russian Federation’s willingness to fight and win a nuclear exchange with the West. Reportedly, this exercise is using the full range of Russian strategic, tactical, and advanced hypersonic delivery systems to carry out nuclear strikes – many of which would only be useful against Western Europe or the United States. The message is clear: Russia will use its modernized and capable nuclear arsenal to shape NATO responses and, if necessary, compel a favorable outcome in a conflict. President Biden, on the other hand, is conducting a review of the United States’ own nuclear posture and considering shedding vital nuclear capabilities and moving away from the nuclear declaratory policy that has deterred the wartime use of nuclear weapons globally for over 70 years. Our NATO allies understand how damaging these moves can be to global stability, and they have been united in opposing such moves. It’s clear that the Biden Administration’s approach is completely out of touch with the dangerous reality facing the U.S., NATO, and our allies around the world.”

Illustration: The road-mobile missile system Topol’ with missile RT-2PM, unparalleled in the world rocket and missile engineering, is designed to destruct all the types of strategic objectives in any situation of combat employment. RT-2PM is the fourth generation’s strategic missile. (Russian Defence Ministry)

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.