Could a conflict between NATO and Russia escalate into a nuclear war? What would happen to Russia afterwards? As Ukraine strikes deeper into Russian territory and Vladimir Putin becomes increasingly desperate, American and European defense analysts express growing concern about the possibility of the Russian leader attacking Europe. A former Pentagon official believes that Russia should be dismantled into four or five states.
Dividing Russia into four or five states would not be unprecedented or unusual, according to Michael Rubin, a senior researcher at the American Enterprise Institute and director of policy analysis at the Middle East Forum, in an analysis published by 19fortyfive.com.
A former Pentagon official, Rubin points out that there are over 20 Arab countries, and Somalis live in five states. There are two Romanias - one of them being called Moldova, he writes.
The Paris Peace Conference ended the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Europe did not suffer as a result. Michael Rubin argues that the same logic should be applied to Russia.
Russia loses in a war with NATO
The secret visit last month to Moscow by CIA Director John Ratcliffe fueled speculation about an imminent major event.
Such an attack may not be a frontal offensive against the Baltic states or the Balkans. When Russian Spetsnaz forces initially invaded Crimea, they operated wearing green uniforms without insignia to sow confusion and maintain plausible deniability.
The same scenario could be repeated in a Baltic country like Estonia. Additionally, cyberattacks on critical infrastructure or isolated strikes with drones, missiles, or aircraft could test NATO's resolve.
A Russian military attack on NATO would trigger a much larger-scale war. Most likely, this means a repetition of tactics seen in Ukraine: ballistic missile strikes on NATO military bases, weapon factories, airports, and Amazon logistics centers, as well as drone attacks and bombings in areas closer to the Russian border.
NATO countries would respond similarly, trying to limit escalation. But in an open war with Russia, the Alliance would prevail, and Moscow knows it, even if Putin constantly misjudges his own strength and underestimates his adversaries, the analyst writes.
What should happen to Russia after a conflict with NATO
An issue that NATO has not yet addressed is what will happen when Russia loses a military confrontation with Alliance forces.
Diplomats and historians will invoke various analogies, Rubin estimates: some will argue that punitive sanctions and concessions imposed on Germany fueled its slide towards Nazism and directly led to World War II. And those inclined to blame America will claim that Washington's support for NATO expansion provoked Russia into war.
Both arguments, however, ignore the active roles that Germans and Russians themselves played. People choose to embrace ideologies like Nazism and extreme interpretations of Russian nationalism; these are not always reactions to a sense of victimization but often the result of years of indoctrination, amplification of grievances, or populism promising a magical formula for achieving greatness.
Even a policy of appeasement would not work in a world where perception matters more than reality. However generous the West may be towards Russia, a populist leader will cultivate the sense of being wronged to threaten Europe again.
Can Putin remain in power?
American and European officials must soon determine their ultimate goal for when the guns and missiles fall silent.
It is likely that the war will only end with the death or removal of Putin. However, if he remains in power, they must ask themselves the next question: Is lasting peace possible if Putin stays?
Diplomats may argue that calling for the removal from power or physical elimination of Putin would nullify any chance of a ceasefire, as it would convince him to fight to the death. The analyst suggests that the issue can be more appropriately addressed by asking this question: is the goal a ceasefire or lasting peace?
Is democracy possible in Russia?
Another debate will emerge, similar to those held regarding Iraq during George W. Bush's presidency: is dictatorship the natural order in Russia, or is a new political system possible? Can democracy bring about a new Russia?
In the Russian context, the question becomes whether democracy has failed to take root due to the failures of President Boris Yeltsin or if the issue was more systemic.
Although Trump admires the presumed strength of dictatorships, he remains blind to their fundamental weakness: dictators survive by dismantling the system that could allow competent successors to emerge. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein guaranteed chaos after his removal due to the power vacuum he had created. Turkey and Russia will face the same fate after Erdoğan and Putin step down or pass away, according to the expert.
Is it time for Russia's dismemberment?
Rubin believes that a more radical approach may be necessary: the dismemberment of Russia itself. And Finland, Poland, Ukraine, and Japan could reclaim the territories that Russia once seized from them.
The international community could go even further, permanently dismembering Russia, just as the Paris Peace Conference ended the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
At the same time, the international community should provide treaty guarantees to these new states to protect them from potential aggression by China or other actors who may seek to exploit resources like Siberia, for example.
Michael Rubin bases his idea of Russia's dismemberment on the lessons of the 20th and current centuries and states unequivocally at the end of his analysis: there will be no peace as long as Russia remains united.
The best solution, if Russia expands its war, is to definitively put an end to the idea of a united Russia.
T.D.