From Cooperation to Competition - 

The Future of U.S.-Russian Relations

May 2015

A Report on an Interdisciplinary Wargame conducted by the 

U.S. Army War College 

Carlisle, Pennsylvania
The Future of U.S.-Russian Relations i

The United States Army War College

The United States Army War College (USAWC) educates and develops leaders for service 

at the strategic level while advancing knowledge in the global application of Landpower. The purpose of the USAWC is to produce graduates who are skilled critical thinkers and complex problem 

solvers. Concurrently, it is the USAWC’s duty to the U.S. Army to also act as a “think factory” for 

commanders and civilian leaders at the strategic level worldwide and routinely engage in discourse 

and debate concerning the role of ground forces in achieving national security objectives. 

The Carlisle Scholars Program

The Carlisle Scholars Program (CSP) seeks to educate select USAWC students through innovative, purpose-driven projects undertaken in partnership with the strategic-level defense analysis and decision making communities. CSP scholars “learn by doing,” as they gain a practical 

understanding of strategy and policy development via direct participation in important debates 

alongside working analysts and defense stakeholders. CSP students are provided with enhanced 

opportunities to substantively examine and influence important national security issues through 

collaborative relationships  with senior government  decision makers and leading policy experts. 

With support of USAWC faculty, scholars pursue both individual and collaborative research and 

writing initiatives. In every instance, the individual student’s charter is to gain new understanding 

of a critical  issue and translate that  understanding either  into a more thorough appreciation of 

the current and future decision making context or a set of actionable recommendations for senior leaders. In the end, CSP aims to build and maintain a lasting dialogue between USAWC, its 

faculty, its students, and the wider national security analysis and decision making communities.

Disclaimer

This final report of the Russia wargame hosted April 15 and 16, 2015, is produced under the purview of the United States Army War College to foster dialogue of topics with strategic 

ramifications. 

The ideas and viewpoints advanced in this publication are those of the authors and do not 

necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the institution, the Department of Defense, or 

any other department or agency of the United States Government.
ii U.S. Army War College

Authors, Editor, and Contributors

Report Authors

COL Gregory K. Anderson, U.S. Army 

COL Gert-Jan Kooij, Royal Netherlands Army 

LTC Karen L.T. Briggman, U.S. Army 

LTC Joseph E. Hilbert, U.S. Army 

Lt Col Christopher T. Lay, U.S. Air Force 

Dr. James C. McNaughton, Department of the Army Civilian

Report Editor

Dr. John R. Deni, Strategic Studies Institute

Contributors

Center for Strategic Leadership and Development (CSLD)

Strategic Studies Institute (SSI)
The Future of U.S.-Russian Relations iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................iv

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. v

Introduction..........................................................................................................................1

Methodology.........................................................................................................................1

Wargame Design ..................................................................................................................4

Turn 1: Continuation of Status Quo..................................................................................6

Turn 2: Europe Moves Rapidly Towards Energy Independence from Russia..............9

Turn 3: Ukraine Conflict Expands / Potential for a Regional 

Miscalculation Increases...................................................................................................12

Turn 4: Runaway Nationalism in Russia .........................................................................15

Turn 5: The Power Elites Turn Against Putin.................................................................18

Turn 6: Getting Beyond Crisis Mode ..............................................................................21

Conclusion..........................................................................................................................23
iv U.S. Army War College

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the following individuals for their participation in the wargame. Their participation should not imply endorsement or concurrence by either them personally or by their respective organizations.

Mr. Spiro Ballas, U.S. Department of State 

Dr. Jorge Benitez, Atlantic Council 

COL Robert Drozd, Polish Army, International Fellow, U.S. Army War College 

Mr. Stewart Eales, U.S. Department of State Fellow, U.S. Army War College 

COL Bob Hamilton, U.S. Army War College 

Mr. Rick Hoehne, U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency Fellow, U.S. Army War College

COL Pat Huston, U.S. Army War College

CW5 Roger Jacobs, U.S. Army Europe

LTC Arturas Jasinskas, Lithuanian Army, International Fellow, U.S. Army War College

Mr. Steven Keil, The German Marshall Fund of the United States

LTC Mike Kimberly, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe

LTC David Kynch, U.S. Army War College

COL Chris Lackovic, U.S. Army War College

Dr. Jeff Mankoff, Center for Security and International Studies

Dr. Craig Nation, U.S. Army War College 

Dr. Karl Qualls, Dickinson College

Mr. Stephen de Spiegeleire, The Hague Center for Security Studies

Dr. Marybeth Ulrich, U.S. Army War College

Dr. Sufian Zhemukhov, George Washington University

Additionally, the authors would like to thank the numerous U.S. Army War College students, international fellows, and faculty who participated as wargame observers and advisors.
The Future of U.S.-Russian Relations v

Executive Summary

Russian aggression in 2014 caught U.S. policy and strategy off guard, forcing reactive measures and 

reevaluation of the U.S. approach toward Russia. Moscow employed nonlinear methodologies and 

operated just beneath traditional thresholds of conflict to take full advantage of U.S. and NATO 

policy and process limitations. In light of this strategic problem, the U.S. Army War College (USAWC), conducted a wargame that revealed four key considerations for future policy and strategy.

• The U.S. must shift from a mostly cooperative approach towards Russia to 

one that recognizes the competitive nature of Moscow 

Moscow consistently pursues the development of frozen conflicts, exclusionary bi-lateral relationships, “sweetheart” and opaque economic deals, and proxy forces willing to 

promote Russian interests, all in an effort to ‘win’ against the West. Meanwhile, current 

U.S. policy describes Russia as both a competitor and a cooperative partner. In reality it 

is clear that the U.S. and Russian systems are inherently competitive, especially regarding Russia’s “near abroad,” NATO, Asia, and the Arctic. A clear U.S. policy that illuminates the competitive nature of the two systems is a necessary step towards regaining the 

strategic initiative. 

• U.S. policy must clearly articulate its position toward Russia, Eastern Europe, 

and Ukraine

U.S. lack of clarity and prioritization toward Russia, Eastern Europe, and Ukraine creates hesitancy and risk aversion, and limits innovation on both sides of the Atlantic. The 

United States must develop a coherent, unified policy toward Russia, one that avoids 

creating disunity within the transatlantic community. 

Differences in how the United States and Europe view the incorporation of Russia into 

a European security architecture are fundamental and will continue to create wedges in 

the transatlantic community that Moscow will seek to exploit.

To strengthen deterrence and reassurance, the United States should consistently reiterate its Article 5 obligations. Meanwhile, Washington must also clarify U.S. interests in 

the Ukraine crisis, otherwise it is likely to continue causing confusion among European 

allies.
vi U.S. Army War College

• U.S. policy must challenge Russia in the competition of ideas and influence

Russia emphasizes information operations as central to its strategy. The United States 

advocates the power and influence of a truthful message, but approaches the issue more 

defensively and incoherently. The United States must undertake a more robust information campaign. 

• U.S. policy must account for the two national election cycles in 2016 and 2018 

President Putin needs a political “win” before 2017 to ensure success in the 2018 Russian 

elections. What is unknown is what actions he will take to achieve that “win” and how 

he may use the U.S. election cycle as an opportunity. The United States must be pro-active in shaping the environment prior to Putin taking the initiative. 
The Future of U.S.-Russian Relations 1

Introduction

The reemergence of Russian aggression in 2014 forced an immediate review and evaluation of U.S. policy and strategy toward Europe and Russia. Russian nonlinear approaches, often 

operating just beneath traditional thresholds of conflict, exploited weaknesses of longstanding U.S. 

and NATO policy constructs, exposing gaps and seams that now require reexamination. Trends 

within the strategic environment indicate that the nature of the U.S.-Russian relationship is likely 

to remain competitive, thus requiring a critical look at current assumptions and a comprehensive 

reexamination of Western thinking about Russia. 

In support of that reexamination, in October 2014, a team of six students from the CSP at 

the USAWC began a six-month project to assess the driving factors behind Russian foreign and 

security policy, in order to better anticipate future behavior. The project was grounded in systems 

thinking and aimed at building a strategic-level system design of Russia as a point of departure for 

research, analysis, collaboration, and experimentation. The CSP team created a visualization and 

formal paper describing what it came to term “the Russian System,” culminating in a strategic-level 

wargame to test key hypotheses and expand collaborative learning. This report provides some insights into the broader project, but is more focused on the results of the wargame and how those 

results can inform future thinking about U.S.-Russian relations.

Methodology

Systems thinking is a subcategory of critical thinking and an appropriate tool for addressing complex, strategic-level problems. This project attempted to see Russia holistically, properly 

arranging Russian actors and relationships and defining the environmental, historical, and cultural 

forces behind observed system behavior and patterns. The overarching idea behind this method, 

is that once one can fully visualize a system and begin to understand that system’s logic, one can 

better anticipate future behavior, identify second and third order effects, accurately conceptualize 

risk, and potentially influence strategic outcomes. Here is a synopsis of the system design method 

to learning that produced the team’s understanding of the Russian System:

1) Initial Research – The team conducted intensive research into Russian history, economy, 

politics, and military reform. Additionally, the team reviewed current news reports, field 

reports, and commentary by Russia experts across multiple disciplines. This created the 

foundation to begin initial system design.
2 U.S. Army War College

2) Brainstorming and Synthesis – The team identified the array of actors, relationships, 

and forces that contribute to Russian behavior. This established the framework for the 

Russian System, but fell short in fully explaining causal relationships. Assumptions and 

hypotheses generated from these sessions drove additional research and review.

3) Follow-on Research – The team conducted another research effort dedicated to accumulating more data to support, or disprove, ideas discussed during initial system synthesis.

4) Visualization of the Russian System – As additional data and analytical refinement 

strengthened the team’s understanding of the array of actors and forces, the next step was 

to create a visualization of the system to guide further analysis. 

Figure 1: Visualization of the Russian System
The Future of U.S.-Russian Relations 3

5) Collaborative Learning and System Reframe – Over the next three months, the team 

engaged think tanks, Department of Defense entities, academic institutions, and international organizations to discuss and critique the conceptualization of the Russian System. 

These discussions resulted in further refinement of the system model and the causal relationships that underpin it.

6) Wargame and System Testing – On 15 and 16 April 2015, the U.S. Army War College 

hosted a strategic level wargame designed to test the ideas behind the Russia System and 

act as a venue for thought experimentation, synthesis of perspectives, and competitive 

heuristics related to the nature of U.S.-Russian relations. The overarching objective of 

the effort was to assess the implications for the U.S. military of various potential future 

scenarios.
4 U.S. Army War College

Wargame Design

The U.S. Army War College designed the wargame to be a semi-competitive, heuristic exercise to test and improve understanding of the Russia System while facilitating a more rigorous 

assessment of the likely future directions of U.S.-Russian relations through introduction of dynamic uncertainty, differing perspectives, multiple domains, and analysis of all elements of national 

power. In order to achieve these objectives, participants were divided into three teams – a Russia 

Team, a U.S. Team, and a ‘White Cell’ Team. 

The Russia Team was comprised of academics, think tank experts, State Department personnel, and Department of Defense experts on Russia. The Russia team included a wide range of 

perspectives, including “Kremlinologists” and Russian historians, native Russian-speaking journalists, and inter-agency experts on current Russian affairs. The Russia Team played the role of Putin’s 

inner circle in the Kremlin and was charged with seeking ways to expand and improve Russian 

standing and influence, while maintaining Putin’s grip on political power.

The U.S. Team was comprised of current NATO planners, Russia scholars, and European 

security policy experts from multiple think tanks, the State Department, academia, and the U.S. 

military. The U.S. Team played the role of U.S. policy makers in Washington, DC and were required 

to carefully consider EU, NATO, and individual European national perspectives throughout the 

wargame. Their goal was to create policy and strategy designed to maintain a stable, secure, and 

prosperous Europe in accordance with National Security Strategy objectives. 

The White Team was comprised predominantly of Army War College students, faculty, and 

international fellows from NATO countries and Eastern European Partners. The role of the White 

Team was to assess U.S. and Russian policy choices, and provide insights from the represented national perspectives. 

 The wargame consisted of several possible future scenarios involving the United States 

and Russia. The scenarios were designed to challenge certain elements of the Russian System in 

a progressively more rigorous fashion. The scenarios were presented in a six-turn sequence, with 

each turn comprised of a period for Russia and U.S. team deliberation, policy implementation, and 

then reactive counter-moves. Meanwhile, the White Team also deliberated each turn, and offered 

analysis and evaluation of decisions by the Russia and U.S. teams. The turns were as follows:
The Future of U.S.-Russian Relations 5

1) The status quo continues for an indefinite period with little significant change

2) Europe moves rapidly towards energy independence from Russia

3) Expansion of the conflict in Eastern Ukraine and a regional miscalculation

4) A nationalist uprising within Russia and incident within the Baltic States

5) Putin is removed from power and Russia must stabilize its situation 

6) Getting beyond a constant state of crisis
6 U.S. Army War College

Turn 1: Continuation of Status Quo

The first session tasked each team with examining current policies and strategies, and to assess the implications of 

the status quo persisting for some period of time. The White 

Team focused its efforts on providing a Euro-centric critique 

of current Russia and U.S. policy. 

The Russia Team looked carefully at the forces that are 

driving current Russian behavior and policy. Although there 

was not complete consensus on what Russia’s objectives are, 

there was general agreement on several policy and strategy 

related issues. Key points discussed during this turn included 

the following:

•	 Does Putin have a grand strategy?

o Perhaps he does not, and is instead improvising and adjusting as he navigates Russia through the strategic environment. 

o On the other hand, perhaps the strategic aim for Putin and his trusted circle 

is the maintenance, preservation, and perpetuation of the current system of 

power and wealth distribution with Russia. 

o From another perspective, Putin’s strategy appears focused on restoring 

Russian greatness and prestige in the eyes of Russians and the international 

community.

•	 Russian behavior appears to be driven by a feeling of constraint. The United States 

and the greater West are typically viewed as interfering with Russian desires, creating conditions for a competitive relationship.

o Ironically though, Russians may be willing to pardon or tolerate Western 

interference in exchange for capital investment.

•	 Russia appears to seek global relevance. Investment in global reach technologies 

and capabilities demonstrates that Russia is not content to confine its influence to 

the ‘near abroad’ and other surrounding territories.

•	 Russians appear somewhat hesitant to use overt military action to achieve policy 

aims. In some cases, they seem more comfortable cloaking their military actions 

with other events, and fully integrating military force with other elements of na

“Russia 

appears to 

seek global 

relevance.”
The Future of U.S.-Russian Relations 7

•	 tional power. They also seem keenly aware of how far they can push the United 

States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) without provoking an 

unintended conflict.

•	 Putin appears to find great utility in creating ‘frozen conflicts’, perhaps as a means 

of providing Russia with tools to barter, negotiate, or rapidly escalate or deescalate. 

Meanwhile, the U.S. Team was in agreement that current U.S. policy needs adjustment in 

order to recognize U.S.-Russian strategic competition. Following additional deliberation, the U.S. 

Team concluded that the status quo would not suffice in safeguarding American or Western interests at a reasonable cost. Hence, the U.S. Team discussed how the status quo could be strengthened:

•	 And should continue to deter any Russian efforts to destabilize U.S. allies and European partners, and the United States should continue to affirm the importance of 

sovereignty and the rules of the international system. 

•	 The United States should initiate a discussion within NATO clarifying the meaning 

of Article 5 in an era of emerging security issues, including cyber conflict, hybrid 

warfare, and energy security.

•	 The United States should continue to seek areas of cooperation with Russia on a 

range of regional and global issues. Nonetheless, a return to business as usual – perhaps through another ‘reset’ with Russia – is not possible in the short term. 

•	 The United States should give higher strategic priority to Europe and consider stationing additional military forces in strategic locations within the region.

After the Russia and U.S. teams presented their assessments, the White Team – comprised primarily of Europeans – shared the results of their analysis:

•	 Continuation of the status quo perpetuates what many in Europe perceive as a lack 

of clarity, prioritization, and strength in U.S. policy. 

•	 The status quo risks allowing economic and social conditions in Ukraine to worsen 

in the near to mid-term. 

•	 Subsequently, the status quo may facilitate or promote Russian advantages in narrative and strategic initiative. 

•	 Current information and influence operations by the United States are ineffective.

•	 The current Article 5 construct may not be sufficient given information and cyber 

infractions against NATO allies. The United States should lead this discussion for it 

to resonate among the 28 member nations.
8 U.S. Army War College

•	 Current U.S. and Western policies may not sufficiently appreciate Russia’s perceptions of honor and power. Failure to account for Russian perceptions of these and 

related concepts may reinforce Putin’s narrative and his appeal within Russia.

•	 The United States should continue its efforts at building partner capacity -– strengthening NATO and the European Union (EU) will increase the role of European partners and will reduce strategic costs in the long term.
Turn 2: Europe Moves Rapidly Towards Energy Independence from Russia

In this scenario, the teams explored the implications of a more energy independent Europe 

within the next five years. This scenario assumed that Russian attempts to fracture NATO through 

energy leverage deals had backfired and a unified Europe reacted by seeking alternative energy 

sources. Consequently, the United States and Europe started to earnestly develop the necessary infrastructure and diversification to insure their energy needs without fear of Russian manipulation 

or leverage. 

The Russia Team sought to take advantage of their short-term advantages in the energy 

market and extract as much capital as possible from the West, largely as a means of safeguarding 

Russia’s fiscal situation and forestalling domestic political tensions that could arise in the wake of 

Figure 2: Russian Gas Pipelines

The Future of U.S.-Russian Relations 9
•	 Supported Russia’s desires to sell energy to Europe, but wanted to ensure the arrangement somehow precluded Russian ‘bullying’ of energy importing nations in 

Europe.

•	 Proposed investment of public and private funds into infrastructure and technology to improve storage and security of hydrocarbons, to include investment in 

Ukrainian energy infrastructure to increase capacity.

•	 Sought to prepare the EU and NATO for Russian attempts to undermine energy 

transformation, including Russian pressure on Ukraine, launching cyber-attacks 

targeting key energy transit nodes in the public and private sectors, and seeking to 

influence political parties and NGOs in Eastern and Central Europe to not support 

the energy independence movement.

•	 Suggested the U.S. should engage Moscow on the benefits to Russia of a more open, 

competitive energy market.

White Team observations of Russian and U.S. actions were not focused on the importance of an 

energy independent Europe, but rather recognized trends in how the U.S. and Russia teams implemented their strategies:

•	 The White Team was critical of the U.S. Team’s strategic communications and influence campaigns during the energy transition period. In particular, they criticized 

U.S. efforts to combat the Russia Team’s heavy information operations (IO) campaign to undermining European energy independence. 

•	 The White Team observed that U.S. policy and action was consistently ‘softer’ than 

Russia’s. Russia always sought to gain the initiative by attacking U.S. policy, seeking vulnerabilities in the European alliance, and skillfully blending and integrating 

multiple instruments of national power. The Russian Team seemed unconcerned 

with the U.S. Team overreacting, and appeared to recognize they could aggressively 

undermine the energy independence movement without significant consequence.

This scenario validated the idea that a Europe less energy dependent on Russia is more 

secure. However, total energy independence from Russia did not appear to be in either team’s interests. Rather, any concerted attempt towards energy independence will force a significant Russian 

response. Although concerned with the idea of an energy independent Europe, Moscow is likely 

to remain confident that it has the time and leverage to undermine these efforts. Both the U.S. and 

Russia teams identified common interests in ensuring continued energy investments, economic 

diversification, and healthy economic competition. 

10 U.S. Army War College
The Future of U.S.-Russian Relations 11

higher unemployment and slower economic growth. The question of European energy independence was a serious matter for the Russia Team as they sought to undermine Western policies 

aimed at European energy diversification. Nevertheless, the desire for increased security competition with the West was limited. The Russia Team instead offered a rational, pragmatic, and proactive approach, which included the following:

•	 Undermining European plans through the pursuit of “sweetheart” deals with energy vulnerable states. 

•	 Preserving long term access to energy revenue through demand diversification 

into Africa, China, and India. 

•	 Increasing energy prices in the short term to take advantage of current European 

energy dependence and extract as much capital as possible, and subsequently investing these energy windfalls into diversification, expansion, and modernization 

of energy sectors. 

•	 Leveraging Moscow’s relationship with Germany to undermine European plans 

for energy independence. 

•	 Accelerating attempts to improve effectiveness in combating corruption as a means 

to make the Russian budget and economy more resilient and less wasteful.

•	 Continuing to bear in mind the impact of reduced government revenues on the 

2018 Russian national elections. 

The U.S. Team responded to this 

scenario by acknowledging the need for 

a global energy market that works better 

for all suppliers and consumers. While the 

team was not able to more fully develop 

what defined this market, they did note 

that it would include a more resilient and 

efficient liquefied natural gas (LNG) market and sought a market in which natural 

gas was no longer. More broadly though, 

the key concern was maintaining European unity. The U.S. Team emphasized the 

need to demonstrate support for European 

energy needs, while ensuring that all stakeholders understood the security consequences of energy dependence on Russia. 

In summary, the U.S. Team:

The United States 

must help to 

preclude “Russian 

‘bullying’ of 

energy importing 

nations in Europe”
12 U.S. Army War College

Turn 3: Ukraine Conflict Expands / Potential for a Regional 

Miscalculation Increases

One of the more likely scenarios to unfold in the coming months is a violation of the current Minsk II Agreement and subsequent expansion of the conflict within Ukraine. In this scenario, pro-Russian separatists resumed offensive combat operations in Eastern Ukraine with the 

goal of capturing Mariupol. Tensions between Russia and Ukraine also manifested themselves in 

an exchange of gunfire between Ukrainian security forces and Russian soldiers exercising within 

Transnistria, along Ukraine’s border with Moldova. Adding to this was a bomb blast in Ukraine that 

caused the deaths of two U.S. soldiers involved in training Ukrainian Defense Forces. Lastly, concerned leaders in Tbilisi, following the completion of 

a NATO-Georgian military exercise, and in light of 

the expanded conflict in Ukraine, began aggressive 

lobbying both publically and privately for NATO to 

move forward with the promise of membership and 

issue Georgia a Membership Action Plan. 

The Russia Team was unified in its support 

for ethnic Russians within Ukraine and was determined not to let Russian separatists fail. Despite this 

backing, the Russia Team was non-supportive of 

the attempt to capture Mariupol. The Russia Team 

was not concerned with establishing a land bridge 

to support Crimea – especially given the escalatory nature of such an operation and the difficulty of 

defending any such gains – and hence were content 

to maintain the status quo established by the Minsk 

II Agreement. The Russia Team was generally more 

interested in keeping their strategic advantages with 

the current ‘frozen conflict’ and did not wish to escalate, although they did see these events as an opportunity to discredit and disadvantage the United 

States. Moreover, the Russia Team had the following 

observations:

•	 The Minsk II Agreement seems acceptable to all parties except Ukraine.

•	 Russia, the United States, and Europe can afford to be patient and careful regarding 

Ukraine, while leaders in Kyiv attempt to make this a time-sensitive crisis.

“The United 

States should 

consider 

designating both 

Ukraine and 

Georgia as 

major nonNATO allies.”
The Future of U.S.-Russian Relations 13

•	 Moscow would likely vehemently deny any involvement in provoking events in 

Moldova or in the death of U.S. troops. To the contrary, Russia would be likely to 

blame the United States for the deaths, due to Washington’s meddling in the region. 

•	 The United States would be unlikely to allow Georgia to become a NATO member 

due to intra-alliance disagreements on this subject, and due to a fear of provoking 

Russia. Hence it would be best for Moscow to allow NATO to deny Georgia membership, and then immediately make positive overtures to establish better relations 

between Russia and Georgia while simultaneously discrediting the United States 

and NATO.

The U.S. Team saw this crisis as a chance to place a higher strategic priority on Ukraine, 

making it central to the core U.S. policy of deterring Russian aggression. The U.S. Team wanted to 

ensure it clearly communicated to both Russia and Europe the American readiness and willingness 

to prevent Moscow from further destabilizing the region. The U.S. Team agreed that, in light of 

the unfolding scenario, previous approaches had likely been too ‘soft’ and ambiguous, and that the 

United States should endeavor to communicate strength during this crisis. Other observations and 

assessments are as follows:

•	 The United States should consider designating both Ukraine and Georgia as major 

non-NATO allies. This was both a diplomatic symbol and an avenue for providing 

increase security assistance, training opportunities, and armaments to these states.

•	 Washington ought to promote greater NATO support in the region.

•	 Although underwriting Ukrainian and Georgian security in a more open, aggressive manner would cause controversy within NATO and risk feeding Russia’s anti-Western narrative, the risk of inaction would likely be more dangerous.

•	 The United States ought to consider raising the costs to Russia for any conflict expansion, though imposing sanctions on Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial 

Telecommunication (SWIFT) network transactions between banks ought to be held 

in abeyance for the moment.

•	 Ukraine would likely be the best place to confront Russia and to send a clear message of intent, capability, and will.

White Team observations were focused on Russian advantages in the region and the difficulty the United States faces when trying to counter these advantages. Additionally, the White 

Team was quick to recognize the risks the United States incurs when pursuing actions independent 

of Europe and NATO:
14 U.S. Army War College

•	 The United States has a greater evidentiary standard than Russia when proving intent and involvement in the region. The United States must accept a burden of proof 

beyond a reasonable doubt, where Russia only needs to show a degree of doubt. 

This dynamic plays into Russian success with ambiguous approaches and Moscow’s 

ability to create uncertainty and doubt within the West.

•	 Time is one of Russia’s greatest advantages – they can wait for small gains, consolidate them patiently, de-escalate tensions, and then wait and set conditions for the 

next opportunity. Western reactive policies play to this strength. 

•	 Proposed American reactions as outlined by the U.S. Team would be too reactionary in their approach. Only after the deaths of U.S. soldiers, or some similar tragedy, 

would a stronger policy and strategy be put in place.

•	 The United States ought to increase diplomatic efforts with France and Germany. 

That solidarity, they argued, would prove formidable to Russia, though the United 

States must be ready to manage and overcome a European perspective that some 

battles cannot be won.

Overall, the notable disparity on how to approach war in Ukraine and Crimea only served 

to reinforce the frozen conflict within the region. The Russia Team consistently sought to develop 

tools to enable strategic flexibility in the absence of a long term strategy. The creation of proxies, 

bi-lateral relationships, “sweetheart” economic deals, and information and influence campaigns are 

the mechanisms that could allow Russia to take advantage of strategic opportunities or to hedge 

against uncertainty. This scenario showed a clear parallel between current observed Russian behavior and a Russia penchant for creating multiple options in lieu of pursuing a single, clear, long-term 

strategy.
The Future of U.S.-Russian Relations 15

Turn 4: Runaway Nationalism in Russia

Throughout the conflicts of the Putin era, Russia has ‘weaponized’ nationalism, using aggressive patriotic rhetoric as part of influence campaigns to motivate the Russian population at 

home and across the near abroad. By blaming the West and accusing NATO of threatening Russia, 

Putin builds and furthers anti-Western feelings and encourages a dangerous mix of nationalism 

and patriotism that is hostile toward the West. In this scenario, Russian nationalists in Russia and 

elsewhere have taken to the streets in violent protests of Putin’s inability to resolve the Ukraine 

crisis decisively in Russia’s favor and to save the deteriorating Russian economy. One demonstration in Latvia has resulted in the accidental shooting of a Russian protest leader by a Latvian Police 

Officer – raw video footage of the incident has gone viral online. Protesters demand that Putin live 

up to his pledge as protector of Russia and take stronger actions in Ukraine and the region. Some 

of the most vocal nationalist leaders and media have even called for a new government. 

The Russia Team assessed that Moscow’s primary challenge would be demonstrating 

strength to the Russian people without provoking a wider conflict with NATO. Putin in particular 

would likely feel compelled to take action or face losing legitimacy in the eyes of the Russian people. Other Russia Team assessments included the following:

Figure 3: Ethnic Russian Population

Ethnic Russian

Percentage

Finland

Latvia

Estonia

Lithuania

Belarus

Poland

Ukraine

Romania

Slovakia

Hungary

Serbia

Bulgaria

Turkey Greece

Macedonia Georgia

Azerbaijan

Iran

Syria Iraq

Turkmenistan

Uzbekistan

Kazakhstan

Tajikistan

Kyrgyzstan

Mongolia

China

Afghanistan

Pakistan

India

DPRK

ROK

Japan Bosnia

Russia

Russia
16 U.S. Army War College

•	 It seems likely that Moscow would deploy military forces within a few kilometers of the Russia-Latvia border. Blending information and influence operations 

throughout such moves, Moscow would likely characterize any deployments as 

purely defensive. Simultaneously, Moscow would likely demand an investigation 

into the shooting of the Russian citizen, offering to lead the investigation and any 

subsequent prosecution.

•	 Despite the rapid escalation of the 

crisis, Moscow would likely then try 

to bring about a controlled de-escalation. 

•	 It is possible that Russia might conduct a more aggressive and clandestine operation using Russian 

SOF, intelligence, and transnational 

criminal elements to abduct the Latvian Police Officer and bring him 

to Russia to stand trial. In order to 

avoid Article 5 implications, the use 

of criminal organizations would 

create sufficient ambiguity.

•	 In any case, Russia would likely rely 

heavily on its strengths in information operations, influence, and 

control. Actions within this domain 

might include spinning the events 

to show Russian dominance of and 

need to control the near abroad, the 

enlistment of Vladimir Zhirinovsky 

to counter more extreme Russian nationalist groups, and inciting anti-Russian 

sentiment in the region to elicit a NATO response to be further exploited by Russian information operations.

•	 Given Russian presidential elections coming up in 2018, Putin would likely feel 

compelled to create some sort of “political win” in the short-term to maintain and 

perhaps boost his legitimacy if the Russian economy continues to struggle.

•	 Lastly, Russia might offer to assist the EU and the Baltic states in restoring order 

and creating the conditions necessary for peace. This might include a plan to contribute to a regional stability force, through which Russia could then demonstrate 

strength and reinforce its position as guarantor of the Russian people.

Russia is 

likely to “rely 

heavily on its 

strengths in 

information 

operations, 

influence, and 

control.”
The Future of U.S.-Russian Relations 17

The U.S. Team assessed that Washington has an interest in supporting Russian internal stability. If so, the United States might conclude that the protests inside Russia and elsewhere, as well 

as the accidental shooting within Latvia, were strictly domestic issues, and that Washington would 

likely seek to reinforce support for democratic rules and processes.

•	 The United States would likely attempt to remind governments across the region 

about the destabilizing effects of runaway nationalism, and encourage and support 

actions to fully integrate ethnic and Russian-speaking populations, to include the 

sizeable Russian-speaking minority in Ukraine.

•	 Washington would also likely encourage the EU – vs. NATO – to provide border 

security and policing assistance to the Baltic States.

•	 As a means of demonstrating patience and restraint, the United States might also 

push to postpone planned NATO exercises near areas of tension. 

•	 Finally, it seems likely that Washington would try to avoid reacting too aggressively 

– for example, by deploying U.S. or NATO forces to the Baltic States – to the deployment of any Russian forces along the Russian-Latvian border. 

White Team observations reinforced the importance of restraint with two key observations: 

•	 The NATO alliance would need to react cautiously to events in such a crisis. Sending 

the wrong signals to Russia could create the conditions for miscalculation as the 

Russians attempt paradoxically to de-escalate through escalation.

•	 Any U.S. effort to unilaterally escalate conflict with Russia might bring about Washington’s isolation from its European allies. 

In this scenario, the United States would likely struggle to compete with Russia in terms of 

ideas and influence. Russia would be likely to consistently exploit its advantages in the information 

realm and cause indecisiveness within the United States and within the West more broadly. Of 

special note, this scenario further highlighted the danger of differing transatlantic perspectives on 

regional challenges. 
18 U.S. Army War College

Turn 5: The Power Elites Turn Against Putin

The next turn of the wargame explored a possible scenario where Putin is removed from 

power by disaffected and disenfranchised elites. In this scenario, Putin’s continued trend of centralization of control and power and his ever-shrinking inner circle has created the potential for 

the emergence of alternatives to Putin and an implosion of his autocracy. More specifically, in 

this scenario Russia’s economic decline has continued with a corresponding rise in nationalist and 

anti-Western rhetoric from the Kremlin. However, unchecked corruption and inefficiency have 

continued to plague the Russian economy. Capital flight, defection of oligarchs, imprisonment of 

political opposition leaders, the sacking of questionable government institutional elites, the rise of 

strongmen like Ramzan Kadryov, and the continued consolidation of power and wealth by Putin’s 

shrinking inner circle have created the conditions for elites across Russia to seek an alternative form of governance. Those elites, including 

the siloviki, economic oligarchs, and disaffected 

regional leaders have begun to seriously question 

the direction Putin has been setting for Russia – 

as a result, their self-interests have finally come 

into direct conflict with political loyalties. The 

teams considered who or what might succeed 

Putin, what path the new regime would set for 

Russia, and how the United States should approach a new Russian regime. 

The Russia Team assessed that it is possible that any number of radical alternatives to 

Putin, such as an ultra-nationalist leader, former 

Soviet era leaders, and progressive, liberal opposition elites, might come to power. However, the Russia Team concluded that the most likely 

outcome of this scenario would be a quiet putsch in which existing elites, perhaps led by Dmitry 

Medvedev, would assume control of the government and renew a program of liberalization and 

reform. Any new government would likely be extremely fragile and vulnerable to counteractions 

from other regional leaders or Moscow-based elites, and thus a follow-on regime would likely be 

motivated to engage in positive dialogue with the West soon after transition and power consolidation.

•	 The two most important priorities for the new regime would likely be to solve the 

Ukrainian crisis and clamp down on corruption. These efforts would buy the new 

regime time and space, both internationally and domestically, to establish itself 

and prevent Russia from slipping toward further internal conflict.

It is “unlikely that 

a new, fragile 

[post-Putin] 

regime would 

return any gains 

made in Crimea.”
The Future of U.S.-Russian Relations 19

•	 Given the interests and motivations of the forces most likely to push Putin aside, it 

seems probable that a new regime would emphasize economic liberalization and 

perhaps even reform. Nonetheless, it would seem unlikely that a new, fragile regime would return any gains made in Crimea, or to apologize for any previous 

conflicts. 

•	 If a new regime were the product of Moscow-based elites, there is the possibility 

for regional leaders to turn against the center. For this reason, the Russia Team assessed that a new regime would be more open to engaging with the West in order 

to end economic sanctions. Desperation might even push a new regime in Moscow 

to seek some type of economic assistance from the West, particularly if the Russian 

economy has entered a prolonged period of decline.

•	 Any new regime would be unlikely to hold power, nor win the favor of the West, 

without free national elections, probably within several months of coming to power. 

•	 A new regime would likely seize the opportunity to abandon Russian isolationism 

and engage the West. Part of this engagement could result in a ‘de-Putinization’ 

policy which would likely be supported by the oligarchs, but with appropriate reform to prevent Russia from slipping back into the chaos of the 1990s. 

The U.S. Team assessed that Putin’s sudden fall from power would pose great challenges to 

American foreign policy while also offering the potential to fundamentally change the nature of 

the U.S.-Russian relationship. A cautiously optimistic Washington would therefore be likely to offer 

support and perhaps even assistance to a new Russian regime.

•	 It is likely that Washington would want to signal its willingness to engage the new 

regime, perhaps by lifting sanctions on the banking sector in exchange for a return 

to the Minsk Accords.

•	 Another potential tool for increased cooperation might be the reopening of mil-tomil communications and engagement. This could have the added benefit of helping 

to ensure the safety and security of Russian nuclear weapons and related infrastructure. 

•	 Nevertheless, the United States would likely remain resolute in insisting that Russia 

return to adhering to the rules of the international system, and that forced changes 

to recognized borders as well as other violations of international laws would prevent 

the West from fully embracing the new regime.

•	 Throughout, the United States would increase the odds of success if it recognized 

Russia’s honor and treated the transition as a manifestation of self-determination 

within Russia.
20 U.S. Army War College

The White Team agreed that Washington would likely be cautiously optimistic. Nonetheless, the White Team assessed that the United States would need to engage in a proactive and positive information and strategic communications campaign to take advantage of the opportunity.

•	 The United States would likely need to take the lead in coordination with Europe 

to promote positive strategic communications and influence. This would enable the 

West to avoid more reactive information operations, which have proven to have 

little impact and which may actually discredit the West.

•	 The West would likely need to pull any new regime in Russia into immediate discussions on European security.

•	 The West might increase its odds of success if it relied more upon the EU rather than 

NATO for engaging Russia during any transition. Germany and France, among other European nations, could be very effective in helping Russia chart a positive path 

for all sides during this window of change.
The Future of U.S.-Russian Relations 21

Turn 6: Getting Beyond Crisis Mode

In the final turn, the teams were asked to identify the ideal state of U.S.-Russia relations and 

to offer suggestions on how the United States and Russia might achieve this objective within five 

years. This scenario was designed to force proactive policy and strategy measures that each side 

could take outside the confines of any crisis, which had animated each of the preceding turns.

The Russia Team described Moscow’s ideal 

state of relationship with the United States as one 

of mutual respect and equality. The Russia Team assessed that Russia desires global influence and the 

ability to participate and partner with other states in 

solving global problems. At the same time, Moscow 

also likely seeks dominance over what it considers 

Russia’s sphere of influence, and would therefore 

oppose U.S. and NATO influence inside the near 

abroad. As long as Moscow perceives Russia to be 

subordinated to the U.S. and NATO, Russian foreign policy would continue to compete and counter 

Western actions.

•	 Russia is likely to continue pursuing 

dominance over Eurasia through a 

strong, centralized leadership system. 

•	 The respect of other nations is important to the ideal state that Russia seeks for itself. Russia appears to 

want to participate equally within 

the G20 and to participate in solving 

crises around the globe. 

•	 It is highly unlikely that Russia would ever tolerate the reality or perception of subordination to NATO or the United States.

•	 Given its insecurities, Moscow is likely to believe that treaties serve to constrain 

Russia and leave it little flexibility. 

“Russia is likely 

to continue 

pursuing 

dominance over 

Eurasia through 

a strong, 

centralized 

leadership 

system”
22 U.S. Army War College

•	 Moscow is likely to favor more engagement with developing economies, in order to 

create an alternative to the United States and the EU as partners for development 

and investment.

•	 In the same vein, Russia is likely to accelerate efforts to improve relationships and 

influence within Asia. 

•	 Russia will most likely see continuing utility in maintaining frozen conflicts as a 

way to ensure it can preserve its sphere of interest.

The U.S. Team assessed Russia will likely continue to frustrate Washington’s vision of a 

Europe that is free, whole, and at peace. Hence, even though the United States may seek areas of cooperation with Russia on points of mutual interest, the best case over the next five years is a period 

of competitive but stable relations with Russia.

•	 The United States and Russia are most likely to achieve cooperation on counter terrorism, nuclear arms reductions, missile defense, space exploration, and mil-to-mil 

activities.

•	 The United States may be able to convince Russia to leave the Donbas, but it is unlikely to get Russia to return Crimea to Ukrainian authority. 

•	 The sooner the United States accepts the new reality of a competitive relationships 

with Russia, the sooner the West can compete more effectively. 

•	 The West can best promote its interests by maintaining a unified front, and by consolidating military, economic, and political strengths.

•	 Western strategy is likely to be more successful if NATO can more effectively compete in the contest of ideas and communication. The West should strive for information that is timely, accurate, and effectively delivered as the best means of changing 

the current situation of instability within Eastern Europe and thereby setting conditions for long term stability. 

The White Team assessed that a primary problem for the United States in developing a long 

term relationship with Russia is one of size and influence. The United States has many interests 

around the world, but Russia’s seem far more limited or concentrated. Managing this disparity will 

help establish the parameters for more effective long term U.S.-Russian relations.
Conclusion

Change and evolution within the strategic environment are constant. Actors, relationships, 

and systems adapt or transform to circumstances and events that are often very difficult to foresee. 

The reemergence of Russian aggression in 2014 was one such event, catching the United States 

and its NATO allies by surprise. The reexamination of the U.S.-Russian relationship in the past 

12 months has led to a renewed search for insight into modern Russia. That search has resulted in 

a greater understanding of the ‘Russian system’ and the forces of stasis and change at work on its 

various components. 

This project used systems thinking design methods to analyze and collaborate, leading to 

increased understanding of the Russian system. The subsequent wargame was tied to the design 

approach and led to richer levels of structured collaboration, which permitted a more in-depth 

analysis of Russia and U.S. policy toward Russia.

The structure of the wargame was based on scenarios and questions that Russia, the United 

States, and Europe will most likely face in the near to midterm. Exploring these questions shed light 

into how each side thought about issues, priorities, risk, and alternatives when developing policy 

and strategy.

Four policy considerations emerged from the wargame. The United States must:

•	 Shift from a cooperative to a more competitive approach towards Russia

•	 Clearly articulate its position towards Russia, Eastern Europe, and Ukraine

•	 Challenge Russia in the competition of ideas and influence

•	 Account for the two national election cycles in 2016 and 2018

These recommendations address specific shortcomings in the U.S. approach to Russia 

broadly and the crisis in Ukraine specifically. By implementing these recommendations, the United States can correct past missteps, which have collectively placed Washington in a reactive posture 

and contributed to misunderstanding in allied capitals as well as Moscow regarding U.S. intentions 

and interests.

The Future of U.S.-Russian Relations 23