The Pentagon wants Moscow back in the canals to prevent escalation
Since meeting in Finland, the two men have spoken several times, including in early Russia in November and again earlier this month.
Milley and Gerasimov have not spoken since the latest hostilities, two Defense Ministry officials told POLITICO. But Pentagon officials say they hope their line of communication – which has been more than that of Defense Minister Lloyd Austin and his colleague, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoygun – can help open more regular contacts with Russian forces as the conflict escalates.
“Now that Ukraine’s airspace is controversial and controversial and Ukraine’s airspace runs right alongside NATO airspace, we have informed the Russians that we believe an operational-level channel is needed … so we can avoid calculations,” a senior Pentagon official said. said POLITICO. “We haven’t received any response from them as to whether they agree or whether they are ready to set up something.”
The official cited as a possible model the “unloading line” set up by U.S. and Russian forces in 2015 to prevent troops operating in the immediate vicinity of Syria from being attacked. The official said the purpose would be to get a reliable instrument to fly: “We are going to do this, stay out of the way.”
But when the United States and other NATO armies complement Ukrainian forces, this demarcation looks blurry at best. Western powers, while committed not to put troops directly into conflict with the Russian offensive army, have openly supported Ukraine’s military efforts in recent days. And when two nuclear powers are only on the border of a possible shooting, the possibility of conflict is real – as is the need for a process of de-escalation, authorities say.
A battlefield-level mechanism to ensure that neither side’s red lines are violated would likely be under the command of NATO’s Supreme Commander, US Air Force General Tod Wolters, with authority to directly reach Russia’s high command of two DoD officers in Europe directly involved in Ukraine’s in design.
But the relationship between Milley and Gerasimov, the top military officers in the two countries, is seen as a way to pave the way for more urgent communication at lower levels. “That’s what the Milley-Gerasimov case is for,” said a senior Pentagon official.
All sources spoke on the condition that they would not be identified when discussing internal negotiations. And they were reluctant to provide many details to avoid undermining trust that could prove critical in the coming days.
Current and former officials and experts said contacts at the highest levels of U.S. and Russian military command are becoming increasingly important as fighting in and around Ukraine expands and the world’s two largest nuclear powers have severed most diplomatic relations.
Putin has consistently accused the U.S. of igniting conflict and pressuring Russia into war as an excuse to paralyze its economy, while President Joe Biden has branded Russia’s attack on Ukraine as a “war of choice” without any justification.
Planes nearby
Over the past 48 hours, Washington and Moscow have suspended “strategic stability talks” aimed at lowering the temperature. Now with new instructions late last week which US diplomats have cancel most contacts with Russian colleagues, some degree of back-channel communication is more necessary than ever.
“We are constantly seeing fighters coming into very close contact,” said Emma Claire Foley, a Russian disarmament expert at Global Zero, who oversees the fight. Military Incidents Project, which follows “close calls” between NATO and the Russian military. “They don’t always use transponders. They’re not in touch with air traffic control. These situations can lead to accidents that can have massive consequences.”
“Every personal relationship is extremely important when dealing with these issues with incredible consequences,” he added, highlighting “these unnecessary roles with nuclear-powered aircraft.”
“All of this poses a risk of escalation,” Foley said.
When the Russian invasion began in earnest last week, U.S. troops in the region were ordered to immediately withdraw from the war zone.
“As soon as the Russians did what they did, we had to get out of the way,” said one of the U.S. military authorities in Europe, who was directly involved in the planning.
The official said it involved redirecting “quite powerful” spy planes and drones flying over Ukrainian airspace.
Now the U.S. Air Force relies on high-flying aircraft over Ukraine, such as the U-2 spy plane, which can avoid most anti-aircraft missiles and drones because it has “slightly more risk tolerance.”
“One of the things we don’t want to do,” the official said, “is to provoke conflict directly with the Russians.”
However, the risk of direct clashes between NATO forces and Russia will only increase as the conflict intensifies, according to several current and former national security authorities.
The United States and its allies are stepping up air patrols in NATO’s eastern area and announced a number of new arms deliveries to Ukrainian troops on Saturday.
As a sign of growing concern, these actions could exacerbate the conflict, the Pentagon said Saturday publicly pushed back Russia’s allegations that U.S. troops helped Ukrainians defend their territory in the Black Sea, where a fleet of Russian warships carrying troops has opened a new front. “Compare this to just one lie on Russia’s defense ministry,” the Pentagon’s press secretary said John Kirby has tweeted.
Uncertainty about Putin’s ultimate intentions is deepening – especially whether he intends to insult the territory of NATO members. Any such intrusion triggered Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which states that an attack on one is an attack on all.
NATO outlined on Friday a list of actions that Russia sees as threatening a wider military conflict.
“Outside of Ukraine, we are seeing provocative Russian military action near NATO’s borders, which stretch from the Baltic to the Black Sea,” it was said. It includes “irresponsible and aggressive nuclear rhetoric” as well as a “military stance.”
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg also warned on Friday that a cyber attack on one of the alliance’s members triggered a “commitment clause” in the NATO treaty that would force a collective response.
The Biden regime has also made it clear to Russia that it will not eradicate conflict if Russia attacks a NATO ally. “We are going to do what we need to do to defend every inch of NATO territory,” Kirby told reporters.
“It can get exciting”
But Moscow’s rhetoric has only increased to bombard. “It’s time to lock up embassies and keep in touch by looking at each other with binoculars and gun sights,” Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s former president and now deputy director of the Russian Security Council, said on Saturday.
Foley said he was following Russia’s “interpretation” of NATO’s decision to send more weapons to Ukraine.
It all makes behind-the-scenes communications between military leaders so important, said Lynn Rusten, a former White House National Security Council director of arms control and non-proliferation during the Obama administration and now vice president of the non-profit Nuclear Threat Initiative.
“There is a lot of uncertainty about where Putin is going to go and what his goals are,” he said. “Things have a lot of potential to escalate. It can get boring.”
Only NATO and Russian military authorities can effectively “dismantle” their forces in the region and ensure a clear “signal and intentions,” Rusten added. “The connections between the soldiers are the most important.”
Publicly, the Pentagon has been the mother of how both sides communicate. He was asked this week whether there are any new mechanisms for resolving conflicts as Washington and Moscow were formulated during the Syrian Civil WarKirby told reporters: “The department has not instructed on wider communication. They are normal channels in normal affairs with the Russians.
“Obviously,” he added, “we are always aware of the risks of force protection, we will always be aware of possible errors and mistakes that can exacerbate things.”
White House press secretary Jen Psaki also pointed out when asked on Friday whether Biden or other top executives were communicating directly with the Kremlin.
“It is clear that our national security team has several ways to communicate with the Russians,” he said.
But he made it clear that “this is not the time when diplomacy feels appropriate.”
“That doesn’t mean we’ve ruled out diplomacy forever,” Psaki added. “[T]the president is still open to participation – from leader to leader – but this is not the time.
This leaves generals and commanders close to fighting to avoid a bigger war.
History of escalation escalation
Washington and Moscow established the first direct “Hotline” in 1963 after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the parties were dangerously close to nuclear war. (They learned only later how close that faulty intelligence and misjudgment had brought them to Armageddon.)
The hotline was originally in the form of a telephone, then a fax; it is now a secure email link located at the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon’s 24-hour operations center.
A former U.S. commander said that in the current crisis, U.S. and Russian military leaders can communicate quickly in a number of ways, but see Milley and Gerasimov as more important than ever.
“Feel your enemy as you know your friend,” he said, according to the ancient Chinese general and philosopher Sun Tzu. “These relationships are so important that you don’t get misjudged and stepped in because you often don’t get direct communication during a crisis. You really just have to trust your information about each other. “
“I hope this relationship has been allowed to grow,” added the retired general, who asked not to recognize him because he did not have the authority to speak for Milley. “Politically, there are some difficulties in the multi-million dollar relationship, but hopefully it hasn’t weakened to the point of not being talked about for a long time.”
He is worried about mistakes with Russian forces at lower levels: “a tactical commander’s error step somewhere or something similar – a communication error.”
Several people cited the deadly shooting of Russian separatists on a commercial plane over eastern Ukraine in 2014 as one example of how the “fog of war” could lead to an immediate confrontation between NATO and Russian forces.
As for nuclear failure, it is considered highly unlikely, but it is not ruled out.
“Most of the time, nuclear weapons scare themselves,” said the retired general. “But sometimes something might get trapped in a logic train that puts you in a position that you think is a credible approach. That’s the scary part.”