The famous American analytical center Rand Corporation published a report on the probability of a direct war between NATO and Russia against the background of the conflict in Ukraine, quoted by STRANA.UA, "Blitz" writes.

All about the topic:

Russian invasion of Ukraine 6580

We review the main theses and recommendations of analysts at the Rand Corporation, one of whose main clients is the Pentagon.

Three reasons for war

The main conclusion of the report is that there is a possibility of a direct confrontation if Russia believes that the Alliance is preparing to attack the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine.

"The biggest risk of Russia deciding to launch a direct strike against NATO allies would be that Moscow recognizes the inevitability of large-scale direct NATO attacks against Russian military forces in Ukraine," the report said.

Russia has launched an Iranian satellite into orbit, amid Western concern

This idea can be provoked both by the limited participation of NATO forces in the operations in Ukraine, and by the concentration of troops in offensive configurations on the eastern border of the Alliance on the eastern border of the country.

"Under such circumstances, Moscow may decide it has no choice but to reduce the damage NATO can inflict by striking key allied forces first," Rand wrote.

Additionally, tactical nuclear weapons can be immediately engaged.

What is the deal with Russia's alleged depletion of conventional missiles, which are largely spent on strikes against Ukraine?

Analysts list specific signs by which Russia can conclude that the Alliance is about to intervene:

Biden called on Russia and China for nuclear weapons control

1.

Political and media calls for war against the Russian Federation in the West.

Rand does not rule out their number growing due to the fact that sanctions and other non-military measures against Moscow are now largely exhausted.

Even if such calls are mostly heard in the media and are generally not supported by the authorities, in Russia this can be seen as preparing public opinion for a future war.

"Under such circumstances, Russia may conclude that direct NATO intervention has become very likely or even inevitable, regardless of what official government statements say," the report said.

However, if increased readiness or advanced deployment of long-range strike weapons is added to the media campaign, pre-emptive strikes by the Russian Federation on NATO attack support assets are possible.

2.

If Russia "misinterprets" the strengthening of NATO on the eastern flank.

The build-up of troops is unlikely to lead to a pre-emptive strike, but if long-range weapons capable of "decapitating Russia's military and political leadership" begin to be delivered there, then Moscow may perceive this as a direct threat and will attack.

3.

If the participation of military volunteers from NATO countries on the territory of Ukraine becomes too noticeable.

And if the supply of new types of weapons also sharply increases.

Moscow may then consider that the Alliance has already intervened directly in the conflict.

Russia's response could be to conduct similar operations on the territory of NATO countries or near their borders.

If the flow of weapons increases so much as to threaten the entire "special operation" (and provided that this flow inside Ukraine cannot be interrupted), the authors of the report do not rule out attacks on NATO supply lines.

And also for any other purposes that will show the seriousness of the intentions of the Russian Federation.

Furthermore, these strikes do not necessarily have to be missiles:

cyberattacks and other types of unspoken military influence (for example, destruction of military warehouses by saboteurs on the territory of NATO countries) are not excluded.

Analysts also suggest that the complex of these factors should be considered as a prerequisite for a direct war between the Russian Federation and NATO.

Including if these signs are combined with anti-government protests in Russia (which Moscow will perceive as an attempt to overthrow the regime by external forces).

UN: The risk of nuclear conflict is back after decades

How to avoid direct war?

7 steps.

After listing the risks, Rand moves on to recommendations.

Immediately there is an agreement that war between Russia and the Alliance is not inevitable.

The main thing for the US and allies is to watch for potential triggers.

"But they should not act on the assumption that any move will lead to acute risks of escalation," the corporation warned.

Americans, according to Rand, should do the following:

1.

To continue to say that they will not go to war directly with the Russian Federation.

And not only publicly, but also to hand it over diplomatically.

2.

Strengthen NATO's defense capabilities in the east, but be wary of deploying long-range weapons.

3.

Deploying new forces on the eastern flank gradually, "so as not to give the wrong impression of preparations for offensive operations."

4.

To disperse and hide the weapons storage sites for Ukraine, so that Moscow does not have the opportunity to hit them with several blows (which reduces the probability of such a decision).

5.

Not to make statements about the change of power in Russia.

"Statements by leaders explicitly calling for regime change could increase the risk that the Kremlin will perceive direct conflict against NATO as necessary for regime survival.

6.

The continuation of the conflict in Ukraine risks activating several of the described scenarios for starting a war between Russia and NATO at once.

And this should be immediately taken into account when planning any steps.

7.

Escalation and direct conflict between the Russian Federation and NATO can arise from seemingly insignificant actions, so every step must be calculated in advance.

"Spirals of escalation between NATO and Russia are as likely to be turned by actions by the United States and its allies as by actions by Russia," the report's authors wrote.

Despite this stipulation, the report suggests that only Russia, which "does not understand" some of the Alliance's steps, could become the initiator of a conflict with NATO.

At the same time, the report does not even consider the theoretical possibility that the West plans to launch pre-emptive strikes against the Russian Federation.

ISW: Putin may use nuclear weapons in Ukraine

What is the significance of the Rand Report?

It should be noted that the report does not contain recommendations to supply less weapons to Ukraine - which is cited as one of the risks.

Moreover, it is this risk that is now the most likely, since deliveries are already taking place and increasing.

Obviously, Rand understands that providing military aid to Kyiv is the cornerstone of American strategy, and that risk cannot be eliminated altogether.

But, judging by the fact that the supplies are moderate (compared to what NATO can actually deliver to Ukraine), the leadership of the Western countries is trying to increase the aid extremely dosed, each time checking the reaction of Russia.

And limiting Ukraine in overtly offensive types of weapons (for example, in long-range missiles).

That is, Rand's concerns are shared in the White House by default.

And the only goal

Russian invasion of Ukraine