兰德-与俄罗斯竞争中的威慑和升级执行摘要（英）-2022.1-30页_4mb

Deterrence and Escalation in Competition with Russia

Core Content

This report explores the role of U.S. military forward posture in deterring and potentially provoking Russian hostile measures in strategic competition. It examines how different aspects of U.S. military presence—forces, activities, and agreements—interact with Russian behavior, and identifies key factors that influence the outcomes of such interactions.

Key Findings

• Forward Posture and Deterrence: U.S. military forward posture, including forces, activities, and agreements, has the potential to deter Russian hostile measures such as economic coercion, political subversion, and military intimidation. However, its use must be carefully calibrated to avoid unintended escalation.
• Types of Posture:
  • U.S. Forces: Strongly associated with deterrence due to their clear signal of commitment and presence. However, their introduction can sometimes provoke Russian hostile actions.
  • U.S. Military Activities: Less directly associated with deterrence and more likely to be linked with escalation, particularly when conducted close to Russian territory. Predictability and distance from Russian borders can reduce escalation risks.
  • U.S. Military Agreements: Generally weakly associated with deterrence, except for defense treaties which can reduce the likelihood of direct military force use. Lesser agreements like status of forces agreements (SOFAs) have limited impact.
• Key Characteristics:
  • Continuity: A persistent U.S. military presence is more likely to deter hostile actions, while sudden changes or discontinuities can increase the risk of escalation.
  • Proximity: The closer the U.S. military presence is to Russian territory, the higher the likelihood of hostile reactions. Conversely, a presence in Central or Western Europe appears to have a deterrent effect.
  • Capability: Military capabilities that threaten Russian security, leadership, or regime stability are more likely to provoke escalation unless carefully managed.
• Escalation Risks:
  • Escalatory consequences often involve delays and misinterpretations, making it difficult to predict or manage competition outcomes.
  • U.S. forward posture is typically a contributing factor rather than the primary driver of competition outcomes, with effects that are cumulative and long-term.

Main Points and Recommendations

Deterrence and Escalation Dynamics

• Deterrence Logic: The same principles of deterrence that apply to armed conflict also apply to competition, but the relationship is more nuanced.
• Security Dilemma: U.S. forward posture can increase the sense of threat among competitors, leading to escalation as they attempt to counter or deter U.S. actions.
• Stability-Instability Paradox: Deterrence of armed conflict may lead to increased hostile measures below the level of war, such as proxy wars or military intimidation.
• Indirect Escalation Pathways: Allies and partners may become more assertive if they believe the U.S. will shield them from the consequences of their actions, indirectly increasing the risk of escalation.

Strategic Implications

• Calibrated Posture: Decisionmakers and planners should focus on maintaining a persistent, predictable, and moderately proximate U.S. military posture to maximize deterrence and minimize escalation.
• Avoiding Unintended Consequences: The introduction of new forces or capabilities should be done with caution, as it may provoke Russian hostile actions.
• Military Capabilities: Sensitive capabilities (e.g., long-range precision fires, cyber tools) that threaten Russian interests are particularly escalatory and should be deployed with mitigation measures in place.

Case Studies

• Iran Crisis (1946): U.S. commitment to Iranian security deterred Soviet aggression, though the U.S. presence was not substantial enough to prevent proxy conflict.
• Euromissile Crisis (1980s): U.S. deployment of intermediate-range nuclear missiles near Soviet borders led to increased military intimidation but did not result in direct conflict due to the deterrent effect of U.S. nuclear capabilities.
• Ethiopia and Somalia: U.S. military assistance and training contributed to escalation in regional conflicts, including proxy wars and increased military intimidation.
• Georgia: U.S. military support and agreements influenced the regional balance of power, potentially leading to more assertive policies by Tbilisi and increased tensions with Russia.
• Baltic States: U.S. military presence in these regions is perceived as a threat by Moscow, increasing the likelihood of hostile actions.

Conclusion

• Forward Posture Strategy: The U.S. should maintain a balanced and calibrated forward posture in Europe to deter Russian hostile measures without provoking escalation.
• Broader Implications: The findings are relevant beyond Russia, influencing concepts like dynamic force employment and the use of calibrated military postures in strategic competition.

Recommendations

• Maintain Continuity: Ensure a consistent and predictable U.S. military presence to reduce the risk of miscalculation.
• Manage Proximity: Deploy forces and activities in a way that is not overly close to Russian borders, but still within the region to be protected.
• Limit Sensitive Capabilities: Avoid deploying capabilities that could be seen as a direct threat to Russian security, unless mitigated.
• Enhance Communication: Improve transparency and predictability in military activities to reduce the risk of misperception and escalation.
• Strengthen Alliances: Focus on robust defense treaties and alliances that signal strong commitment and reduce the likelihood of escalation.