Escalation and Retaliation
What Can We Do In the Event of a Cyberattack Against Key US Infrastructure or a Chemical Weapons Attack in Ukraine?
The US is in an uncomfortable position vis-a-vis Russia: Our sanctions are so harsh that we have little room to tighten them in the event of a large scale cyberattack or the use of chemical weapons. While we have kept some room in the sanctions regime to allow for tightening, for example not all Russian banks have been denied access to SWIFT, it is unlikely that tightening the sanctions any further would seriously deter Putin. What then can the US do to retaliate without risking escalation to nuclear war?
Let’s consider some of the various options in turn.
1) Attack Putin’s allies.
There appears to be an unstated rule in this conflict: Allies who have not been given explicit security guarantees are fair game—after all, Putin knew the US would not use nuclear weapons if he invaded Ukraine. The question then becomes, which of Putin’s allies could serve as our whipping boy in the event retaliation becomes necessary—and which of the possible whipping boys does Putin love best?
China, of course, is Putin’s most important ally, but they are much too large a military power to take on directly. Similarly, Belarus and other client states are likely to be treated, by Putin, in much the same way as an attack on the Russian mainland itself. Iran is not of much importance to Putin. The one ally Putin values, but not enough to justify directly facing US forces, is Syria: As Syria provides Russia with one of its most vital forward naval bases. (In fact, Obama’s efforts in Syria may have rattled the Russians as much as the efforts to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO’s orbit).
Just as there was no formal alliance between NATO and Ukraine, Russia’s alliance with Syria has not been officially documented. In the event we overthrow Assad, we can deny Russia’s naval facilities the supplies it requires to operate—this, in turn, could produce meaningful leverage. Of course, we run the risk of having to face off directly with Russian forces, but this situation is not different from the one the US faced in Korea and Vietnam where there were also Russian advisors and pilots. Many of the troops stationed in Syria are “Wagner group contractors” whom Russia will be reluctant to officially acknowledge.
If we fear that the Russian troop presence is too high in Syria, a backup option would be to attack Iran—though Iran is obviously of less strategic interest to Russia.
Apart from direct attacks on Russia’s allies, we should also announce that all Russian CSTO member states along with China, India, Syria, and Iran will be subject to nuclear retaliation if Russia attacks the US mainland (China and India should be allowed to opt out of this if they choose to join the sanctions regime and to discontinue military cooperation with Russia). This should, in turn, cause them to pressure Russia to sue for peace as they will not enjoy having their heads on the nuclear chopping block.
2) Increase the quality and quantity of the weapons we are supplying to Ukraine
It goes without saying that sending Ukraine quality anti-ship missiles, drones, and planes (either the Polish Migs—or, if time permits—training them on US planes) could punish Russia for any escalation.
3) Further increase troop presence along NATO’s border
Again, this idea should be obvious. As part of the motivation for going into Ukraine is fear of NATO, increasing that fear is likely to hamper the Russian war effort—requiring Russia to hold back more troops in reserve.
4) Carry out our own cyberattacks against Russia
Russia has its own critical infrastructure: Indeed, computers play a key role in its oil, gas, and even its rail and air transit systems. If Russia can cyberattack us, we can cyberattack them.
5) Blockade Russia’s Ports to Non-Russian Flagged Ships (Exempting China Due to Its Nuclear Capabilities)
In essence, this is an extension of the “allies are fair game” principle. While we cannot risk attacking Russian shipping, we can attack non-Russian shipping headed to Russia. Of course, this is among the riskier of the available options as people might consider a full blockade an act of war.
6) Blockade the Kaliningrad Exclave
For those of you who are not aware, there is a part of Russian territory that is actually an exclave surrounded by Poland, Lithuania, and the Baltic sea. This territory is very vulnerable not being attached to the Russian mainland. One could easily blockade it and hold its people hostage. This is the very riskiest option, as it probably would constitute an act of war against Russia proper.
While options 5) and 6) may be too risky, options 2), 3), and 4) are relatively safe. Option 1) is far and away the most interesting—as it is likely US policy makers are not even considering it. However, it could easily kill two birds with one stone as Syria and Iran have been a thorn in the side of the US for quite some time.