It seems F-16’s with nuclear weapons will be Ukraine’s ultimate goal. A deterrence against frustrated Putin use of nuclear weapons on Kiev. Yes, it would be better having Ukraine then under NATO umbrella.
Road-mobile theatre ballistic or cruise missiles would be a far more plausible means, if that path were chosen. F-16s are a comparatively terrible deterrent weapon since they'd be much easier to suppress in a first strike than dispersed, concealable missile launchers.
This video is an old, vaporware Russian advertisement but the general concept of operations is absolutely completely realistic in every way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRClbgBaYko
Michael, excellent comments and analysis on the US approving F-16 for Ukraine. Several questions on my end. The US only approved for NATA allies to send F-16 to Ukraine, why isn't the US sending the F-16. Is our only equity in the deal is to train the pilots and the US will replace the F-16 to the NATO counties that gave them up. I was not familiar with the wording NATO partner vs NATO membership, what is the difference between the two, when it comes to protecting an attack on a partner. Are the planes being given with the understanding they will be used only defensively, or can Ukraine use them to attack deeply into Russia to attrite their supply lines?
Michael, have the French been approached about also selling Storm Shadow? My info is a bit dated, but I know that only a few years ago they had substantial numbers of this missile.
Mr. McFaul, I enjoy reading your posts and articles because they make sense. Most of us don’t have your diplomatic background, knowledge, and first hand information, but by daily following the news, and a bit of common sense we figure out the right path to follow. Your explanation is a clear and logical picture of what should be done to end this conflict, and avoid future similar situations. There is no doubt that because being afraid of crossing the ‘red line’ we are always late providing Ukraine with its military needs. The key to stop Putin is keeping the West united, backing up Ukraine on time, and being well, very well prepared for the worst.
One thing that disappoints me is that we haven't seen more pressure for direct cyber-attacks against Russia. OK, who knows what is going on covertly already, and the wisdom of the current compromise is obviously incredibly difficult to judge from a public perspective. But as a complete outsider I would have thought it'd be relatively easy to cause absolute catastrophic chaos throughout all of Russia's economy and bureaucracy.
At a diplomatic level they are free to interpret it as an armed attack if they want a war, but they wouldn't seem to be forced to; it's far more likely that they'd hack back weakly and fail to make much of an impression (at least in my completely untrained opinion.)
At a legal level, even if it were an armed attack, it wouldn't actually violate IHL if tied to a credible plan to force an international law-based settlement to the conflict.
So why not start throwing some punches? Or at least start a debate about it?
I am not a cyber "expert" (few truly are) but I dealt in that realm for a few years. There are several problems in doing what you say. But to simplify, one is authorities, another is harnessing capabilities, and a third is our offense is better than our defense.
First off, my info is dated about 7-8 years--some of this may be less true now. Without being specific, we DO have some capabilities that could be pretty catastrophic. The problem is (at least as of a few years ago) we could very little to LIMIT or shape the damage they would do--out of even our control--the effects could be long-lasting, deleterious and counter to our strategic aims. Going back to authorities, let's just say, "it's complicated." It's not much different from when we do any kind of military or even clandestine action: because we're a democracy that has rules (and some labyrinthian laws), it's not a hand-wave kind of thing. And, for sure, you're talking POTUS approval on each and every thing.
In general, all of the world cyber powers and aspiring ones--us, the Russians and Chinese included--have better offensive capabilities than we do defensive ones. So, anything the US decides to unleash, it has to deeply consider if it's willing to endure something comparable in return--because our ability to stop it may be very limited. And our populace is just a TINY bit more spoiled/unwilling to endure ANY pain for someone else (look at all the whining now. Want to decrease public support for Ukraine?)
These don't explain it all away, but they are definitely a piece of "why not."
Not a cyber expert by a million miles! Would love to hear from people who are. But the Russians are some of the world's best hackers, and they've already caused plenty of damage. I would think a tit-for-tat cyber attack fest would go badly very quickly. They also have easy access to Atlantic undersea cables and pipelines. But your question about why this isn't more prominent is a good one and something I've wondered too. I suspect a lot goes on that we don't hear about.
This is what we thought before the invasion, and it turned out to be a quick and decisive Western cyber-victory if public information is to be believed.
Another issue is that the Russian cyberwar community moves back and forth between organized crime and semi-official or even official jobs and has a somewhat mercenary character. Machiavelli in Chapter IV of "The Prince" explains how it's easier to conquer a state like medieval France, with proud barons jealously guarding their fiefs, than a state like medieval Turkey where civil servants run everything and are often state slaves. Presumably we could do a lot of divide-and-conquer things. For example, we could negotiate amnesties for major cyber-criminal groups and even let them take out very respectable amounts of money if they agreed to leave Russia, go through extremely intense debriefings, and live under intense but tolerable electronic surveillance somewhere such as Ukraine.
So many things we aren't known to be doing. But then it's always possible things will happen, or come out later.
But will Putin ever notice he's losing even when he really is? Thus far, he's been in an echo chamber and not hearing true reports of what's going on. I agree that Ukraine needs to be armed to the teeth for the unforeseeable future but also find that prospect really sad. The aggressor should be squashed so their neighbors don't *need* be be armed to the teeth, but alas, that's a pipe dream at this point!
I think you're correct about Surovikin, and apparently Prigozhin has also been giving Putin the more sobering details. Today's events inside the Russian border will likely get Putin's attention!
Excellent article, very thorough!
It seems F-16’s with nuclear weapons will be Ukraine’s ultimate goal. A deterrence against frustrated Putin use of nuclear weapons on Kiev. Yes, it would be better having Ukraine then under NATO umbrella.
Road-mobile theatre ballistic or cruise missiles would be a far more plausible means, if that path were chosen. F-16s are a comparatively terrible deterrent weapon since they'd be much easier to suppress in a first strike than dispersed, concealable missile launchers.
This video is an old, vaporware Russian advertisement but the general concept of operations is absolutely completely realistic in every way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRClbgBaYko
Michael, excellent comments and analysis on the US approving F-16 for Ukraine. Several questions on my end. The US only approved for NATA allies to send F-16 to Ukraine, why isn't the US sending the F-16. Is our only equity in the deal is to train the pilots and the US will replace the F-16 to the NATO counties that gave them up. I was not familiar with the wording NATO partner vs NATO membership, what is the difference between the two, when it comes to protecting an attack on a partner. Are the planes being given with the understanding they will be used only defensively, or can Ukraine use them to attack deeply into Russia to attrite their supply lines?
Michael, have the French been approached about also selling Storm Shadow? My info is a bit dated, but I know that only a few years ago they had substantial numbers of this missile.
Mr. McFaul, I enjoy reading your posts and articles because they make sense. Most of us don’t have your diplomatic background, knowledge, and first hand information, but by daily following the news, and a bit of common sense we figure out the right path to follow. Your explanation is a clear and logical picture of what should be done to end this conflict, and avoid future similar situations. There is no doubt that because being afraid of crossing the ‘red line’ we are always late providing Ukraine with its military needs. The key to stop Putin is keeping the West united, backing up Ukraine on time, and being well, very well prepared for the worst.
Yep Prof McFaul. When it comes to geo-politics Putin is really bad at it.
One thing that disappoints me is that we haven't seen more pressure for direct cyber-attacks against Russia. OK, who knows what is going on covertly already, and the wisdom of the current compromise is obviously incredibly difficult to judge from a public perspective. But as a complete outsider I would have thought it'd be relatively easy to cause absolute catastrophic chaos throughout all of Russia's economy and bureaucracy.
At a diplomatic level they are free to interpret it as an armed attack if they want a war, but they wouldn't seem to be forced to; it's far more likely that they'd hack back weakly and fail to make much of an impression (at least in my completely untrained opinion.)
At a legal level, even if it were an armed attack, it wouldn't actually violate IHL if tied to a credible plan to force an international law-based settlement to the conflict.
So why not start throwing some punches? Or at least start a debate about it?
I am not a cyber "expert" (few truly are) but I dealt in that realm for a few years. There are several problems in doing what you say. But to simplify, one is authorities, another is harnessing capabilities, and a third is our offense is better than our defense.
First off, my info is dated about 7-8 years--some of this may be less true now. Without being specific, we DO have some capabilities that could be pretty catastrophic. The problem is (at least as of a few years ago) we could very little to LIMIT or shape the damage they would do--out of even our control--the effects could be long-lasting, deleterious and counter to our strategic aims. Going back to authorities, let's just say, "it's complicated." It's not much different from when we do any kind of military or even clandestine action: because we're a democracy that has rules (and some labyrinthian laws), it's not a hand-wave kind of thing. And, for sure, you're talking POTUS approval on each and every thing.
In general, all of the world cyber powers and aspiring ones--us, the Russians and Chinese included--have better offensive capabilities than we do defensive ones. So, anything the US decides to unleash, it has to deeply consider if it's willing to endure something comparable in return--because our ability to stop it may be very limited. And our populace is just a TINY bit more spoiled/unwilling to endure ANY pain for someone else (look at all the whining now. Want to decrease public support for Ukraine?)
These don't explain it all away, but they are definitely a piece of "why not."
Not a cyber expert by a million miles! Would love to hear from people who are. But the Russians are some of the world's best hackers, and they've already caused plenty of damage. I would think a tit-for-tat cyber attack fest would go badly very quickly. They also have easy access to Atlantic undersea cables and pipelines. But your question about why this isn't more prominent is a good one and something I've wondered too. I suspect a lot goes on that we don't hear about.
This is what we thought before the invasion, and it turned out to be a quick and decisive Western cyber-victory if public information is to be believed.
Another issue is that the Russian cyberwar community moves back and forth between organized crime and semi-official or even official jobs and has a somewhat mercenary character. Machiavelli in Chapter IV of "The Prince" explains how it's easier to conquer a state like medieval France, with proud barons jealously guarding their fiefs, than a state like medieval Turkey where civil servants run everything and are often state slaves. Presumably we could do a lot of divide-and-conquer things. For example, we could negotiate amnesties for major cyber-criminal groups and even let them take out very respectable amounts of money if they agreed to leave Russia, go through extremely intense debriefings, and live under intense but tolerable electronic surveillance somewhere such as Ukraine.
So many things we aren't known to be doing. But then it's always possible things will happen, or come out later.
But will Putin ever notice he's losing even when he really is? Thus far, he's been in an echo chamber and not hearing true reports of what's going on. I agree that Ukraine needs to be armed to the teeth for the unforeseeable future but also find that prospect really sad. The aggressor should be squashed so their neighbors don't *need* be be armed to the teeth, but alas, that's a pipe dream at this point!
I think you're correct about Surovikin, and apparently Prigozhin has also been giving Putin the more sobering details. Today's events inside the Russian border will likely get Putin's attention!