The RAND Corporation issued a new report that warns against a “protracted conflict” in Ukraine and says a prolonged war is against US interests, breaking from the view of many hawks in Washington that the US should support the fight against Russia for the long term.
RAND is funded directly by the US military and often shapes US policies, including hawkish ones toward Moscow. A 2019 report titled “Extending Russia” examined the risks and benefits of ways the US could try to “extend” Russia, and many of those policies have been implemented, including the provision of “lethal aid” to Ukraine, sanctions on Russia, and “hindering” the country’s gas and oil exports.
The new report from RAND titled “Avoiding a Long War” examines the risks of the current conflict and acknowledges a protracted conflict heightens the risk of nuclear war.
A summary of the new report reads: “Discussion of the Russia-Ukraine war in Washington is increasingly dominated by the question of how it might end. To inform this discussion, this Perspective identifies ways in which the war could evolve and how alternative trajectories would affect US interests. The authors argue that, in addition to minimizing the risks of major escalation, US interests would be best served by avoiding a protracted conflict.”
The authors say the war in Ukraine makes it harder for the US to focus on its efforts to prepare for a future conflict with China. “The US ability to focus on its other global priorities — particularly, competition with China — will remain constrained as long as the war is absorbing senior policymakers’ time and US military resources,” the report reads.
The report says that the major risk of a long war in Ukraine is that there would be “a prolonged elevated risk of Russian nuclear use and a NATO-Russia war.” It says that “avoiding these two forms of escalation is the paramount US priority.”
When it comes to Ukraine retaking more of the territory that Russia captured, the report says this is only a “less significant benefit” and that “avoiding a long war is also a higher priority for the United States than facilitating significantly more Ukrainian territorial control.” It places “weakening Russia” as a greater benefit to the US than Ukrainian gains, but still not worth the risk of a long war.
The report recognizes that there is currently little hope for peace talks and suggests that the US could “condition future military aid on a Ukrainian commitment to negotiations.” Another suggestion to foster negotiations is for the US to establish conditions for sanctions relief for Russia. The authors acknowledge the Biden administration has made no effort to push the warring sides toward peace talks.
The conclusion says that due to the political situation in the US, a “dramatic shift” in US policy toward Ukraine is unlikely. But the authors say that “developing these instruments now and socializing them with Ukraine and with US allies might help catalyze the eventual start of a process that could bring this war to a negotiated end in a time frame that would serve US interests.”
48 thoughts on “New RAND Report Says a Long War in Ukraine Is Against US Interests”
Thank you Rand Report for letting us know what we know already.
Turns out the experts agree: nuclear war is bad.
Of course the problem is that this situation has created a massive profit motive for further escalation.
The USA has always had a difficult time grasping the obvious. Maybe when we realize we’re $32 trillion in debt and the only way out is for some “new Pearl Harbor” to happen, so the president can declare martial law and default on the debt. Sorry, Granny, there goes your Social Security and Medicare.
Why don’t we just admit it right now and say “sorry, Granny, no SS”? if we can’t bring ourselves to do that can we at least say “Sorry mom, granny keeps it, but you get your own retirement”?
It’s a conundrum for politicians. Any suggestion for keeping the Social Security Ponzi scheme “solvent” will involve severe pain for significant groups with the power to make sure the suggester never holds office again. So all the people in office just cross their fingers and hope it doesn’t fall apart until they’re already out of office for other reasons.
The last time I heard a politician make a serious suggestion for saving the scam was 2016. It was Chris Christie, in the GOP prmary debates. He suggested raising the retirement age by one month per year until it gets to 70, and means-testing such that if you earn more than $200k in a year, you don’t also get a Social Security check. He’d probably have been crucified for it, but nobody cared what he said because he was boring and Donald Trump was exciting. Christie could have called for sacrificing virgins to a volcano god and everyone would have just yawned.
The Rand study could be seen as political cover, possibly for a decision that has already been made.
It is deplorable, in my opinion, that Rand Corporation and other influencers always want to frame competition with China as a military problem. It wasn’t that long ago that we thought that competition was a good thing and that trade was generally good for all nations (and that it rreduced incentives for war).
Rand now making reasonable statements. But conclude that “due to the political situation in the US” negotiations/amendment of sanctions unlikely. What Sam Hill is “political situation”?? Do they mean massive $$$$ made by arms industry? politicians/lobbyists? military? No, they say, “political situation” not “we people in Rand, defense intelligence industry screwed up.”
Our politics are mostly pretty predictable. And I can’t imagine any way that the current people in charge, not those looking to take power in the other party would actually act in any way to shorten this war. Their parents corporations are making a fortune, and the USA is paralyzed by dread again; no way we’re working together to hold our leaders accountable. And the incredible amount of fear as we circle closer to absolute disaster will be very good for the media companies.
Bad for the humans who put all those spreadsheets in control though.
They are all corrupt inside and out.
It’s funny that an MIC company is now speaking up against the war – still, no one is listening, and radical hawks hold power everywhere…
It turns out all those armchair generals that fund the RAND Corprations value their cousy pensions and commission checks and don’t want to breath radioactive dust after the fallout.
There is an old expression that says: Don’t knock it, if you haven’t tried it….
This is merely a trial balloon. Or why bother to make it publuc? Is it because there is a sense of public tiredness of the issue.
Warmingers are hoping for squeezing a big concession from Russia on NATO issues (remember Russia in its proposals of December 2021 requested pullback of NATO military infrastructure back to Russia-NATO agreement, For giving that up, Russia would be given territories.
Russia is not buting it. It expects the war must end with a clear set of understanding, mutually respectful and respected principles. It cannot be Cold War X — all over again. Either war will end with peace and restoration of relations or it will end on Russia’s terms. There serms to be little faith in US being “agreement-capable” — even less when it comes out in a publuc document.
Maybe indicates the WestExec gangsters are now felt to be vulnerable and the Rand Mob is very tentatively challenging? … or maybe just getting out front for the blame game on the horizon? …??
“There seems to be little faith in US being “agreement-capable” — even less when it comes out in a public document.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself, Bianca. Like Pompeo once said, “We lie, we cheat, and we steal.” How can you trust a nation that makes someone like him Secretary of State?
Sadly, the absence of character, has often been seen as something positive in the executive branch.
It will end on Russia’s terms specifically because of your after-mentioned statement. The imperial parasites are starting to realize what kind of trap they walked into. This isn’t a little disaster like Vietnam or Afghanistan. Kremlin have been planning this since the fall of USSR. All that noise they are making about being ‘poor decepted victims’ is nonsense.
Dude! The Ukraine war, regardless of how short or long, was never in the US or European interests, just like the China, Iran, and Korean wars on the menu. However, it would be hard for me to imagine Nuland reading this report and agreeing to end her Ukraine project in favor of
war“competition with China.” She birthed the Maidan Coup. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ukraine-tape/leaked-audio-reveals-embarrassing-u-s-exchange-on-ukraine-eu-idUSBREA1601G20140207 It’s her baby and she will defend it against any attacks like that Indian mother who fought a tiger with her bare hands to protect her baby.
If the US now’s goes against this advice from RAND and continues the aggressive policy of supporting the neo Nazi / Azov infiltrated Ukrainian regime against Russian speaking people’s in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea we can only expect one thing to eventuate.
The extinction of the human race.
People arew talking a lot about death and destruction in Russia and Ukraine. While this is going on are any people concerned about the health and welfare of American citizens of all races and creeds brought down by inflation,violence,poor education and lack of quality ,cheap health care. These two situations are totally related. The more money and resources put into foreign interventions the greater damage to our national security. Russia,China and Iran are not threats to our existance. These wars with the threat of Nuclear escalation are.
You just have to cringe. The report belatedly concludes what sensible people said all along, just like in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., and dresses up its belated realization as high level analysis. And in true Eichmann fashion it ignores the ongoing death while recommending it continue awhile longer, essentially to facilitate shifting the money clogged blood storm to China. Your tax dollars at work.
“New RAND Report Says a Long War in Ukraine Is Against US Interests The report says a prolonged war in Ukraine hampers the US ability to focus on its ‘competition with China'”
Download and read the report. It is total hogwash spewed from the 50,000 watt Washington propaganda echo chamber Rand Corporation.
The Rand Corporation advertises “Objective Analysis”, but that is such false advertising. Rand fails to mention the warmongers in NATO taking country after country marching to the Russian border or any of the insane NEOCON antics to destabilize the world in the name of American empire.
This report is not worth the paper it was printed on. It is total one sided propaganda.
If you look into the report you find that it was funded by the Center for Analysis of U.S. Grand Strategy, and seed money from the Stand Together Trust along with Rand Corporation sponsors and many other power brokers. In other words, Globalists hiding in a byzantine fun house of mirrors and the World Economic Forum.
Agreed 150%. That’s exactly why they call you, “the Critical Thinker!”
Great deductive reasoning, right there.
“The authors say the war in Ukraine makes it harder for the US to focus on its efforts to prepare for a future conflict with China.”
And there it is. Sounds like our congress. At least the half that prefers war with China over war with Russia.
From Afghanistan to Iraq to Russia to China, they are determined to use each new hopeless inferno as a stepping stone to the next and larger one, until they either control the world or destroy it, and since they can’t achieve the first we’re heading steadily toward the second. They may actually be insane.
I don’t get that, China looks to be a much bigger problem. It would be a naval war and Chinas navy is about as big as ours plus it would be on their home turf so they have an easier logistical problem than they do. Plus it strikes me as unlikely that China will loan us the money for this one.
The Empires having a bad day.
Oh, the Fall of Rome will seem like a peaceful protest compared to what is coming to Anglo-American empire.
Will Jill make the decision to Launch in a False Flag scenario. Obviously Joe is too far gone to know what would be going on.
(This is how it looks behind the scenes)
We have made Russia bleed and we have driven a wedge between Russia and the rest of Europe, while assuring a cold war that spans decades. We have accomplished our (secondary) goals.
We should now wind down this war and to do so in a way that makes us look good, we need to change the Narrative/Spin/Propaganda.
The primary (unspoken) goal is to blow up any remaining stockpiles of outdated equipment, so that replacing it with modern equipment will take decades and cost trillions.
This goal has almost been accomplished, it’s getting close, therefore we need to be exceedingly clear, that this needs to end soon but not too soon, the timing is of utmost importance.
While we do want to blow up as much of the old stock as possible, we don’t want the war dragging on to the point where we rely on new equipment, to stop Ukraine from falling apart completely. If that happened it would showcase how our modern, incredibly expensive equipment, can burn as easily as the old stuff, which might convince the rubes that a trillion dollar upgrade isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
(In other words, “For God’s sake, get this over before the Abrams shows up in the hands of incompetent boobs, who get it blown up in front of CNN )
Ps. We don’t really believe Russia is going to nuke anyone, but we have to toss that in there as an excuse and as a scare tactic and of course to continue the Russia is crazy line.
Pretty good. I would say that they don’t really believe Russia intends to nuke anyone, but they do know that war is unpredictable and . . . stuff happens.
The M1s in particular need to be kept out of action. For all their high priced electronics they’re just more missile bait, which will be obvious if they ever make it close to the front.
Wasn’t Rand the same think tank that said this was a good idea to begin with?
True. In “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia”
they recommended providing lethal weapons to Ukraine as the preferred method for destabilizing Russia.
Good job keeping track. So, let me get this straight.
They support bad ideas until people realize how bad they were, then they join in criticizing their own bad ideas while insisting that they weren’t actually their ideas? Man! I feel so dirty and diabolical just thinking about that.
I’ve been reading their reports, some of them, for a long time. This is standard operating procedure for those guys. They really are scum.
I think you’ll enjoy this clip: https://www.youtube.com/live/uJO41U_Jsic?feature=share
Thanks. Garland’s great and I hadn’t listened to him for some time.
Typical neocon filth. It is a good inside into minds of these psychopaths.
It was good idea up to the point it starts to hurt them. Then it’s a bad idea.
See how these cowards think?
Much like a cop needs criminals the military needs foes. If Russia really gets knocked out our need for military spending goes way way down. It is in the MIC’s interest to keep Russia viable. Or this is a Rand Paul report.
Another relevant study has just been published, this one from CSIS:
What? A pro-war MIC think tank says that the US isn’t spending enough on “defense?” Say it isn’t so!
In the 1980s and 1990s, when I was in, the standard was “enough stored and pre-positioned war material for two simultaneous major regional wars.” And the war machine has grown like Topsy since then, with CSIS and friends whining all the while that too much is never anywhere near enough.
Glamorous and expensive and profitable new weapon systems are what the MIC values, not maintaining stocks of not so expensive or profitable munitions. Back in the day, I read articles about how mines could do the job of a lot of the Navy ships that the MIC insisted on buying. But mines are not profitable. So, the US skimped on mines, while always building new ships.
It is entirely possible that two things can be true at once…(1) far too much money is spent on the MIC and (2) the US doesn’t have enough basic stuff, like ammo, on hand to fight a big war, never mind two at once.
It’s basically a conveyor belt. Sell a crap ton of stuff. Encourage a war to use the stuff up. Sell a crap ton more of that stuff, while lobbying for a switch to new, more expensive stuff.
Another way of getting the new stuff sold is to see the old stuff transferred to other countries (which then have to buy munitions, etc. for them). For example, there are still about 5,000 M-60 tanks in service in 19 countries, and now it’s time to start rolling M-1s offshore so that a bunch of its replacement — supposedly to be settled on this year, what a coincidence! — can be sold.
And get a few M1s blown up to show how much they need to be replaced with the latest design.
I don’t disagree. I just think that it is worth mentioning that not only is the MIC gold plated, but it is not even particularly good at providing what is supposed to be its main product. “Defense” is a nebulous, vague concept, and it can be measured in many ways. The MIC has every incentive to pretend that the more profitable expenditures, ie the ones spent on the latest, most glamorous gizmos, are the best. Whereas actually fighting a war, especially a war against a peer adversary, like Russia, as opposed to Third World, ramshackle militaries and/or insurgent groups (which the USA usually fights against, and, even in those cases, not all that well), requires large, prosaic stockpiles of the basics, which, being basic, are not so “value added” for the defense contractors.
Comments are closed.