If you think the conflict in Ukraine sprang up without precedent, read a 2019 RAND paper that lays out a comprehensive set of measures intended to push Moscow into costly responses. RAND is a government-funded research institution whose work informs the Pentagon, State and other policy bodies, and the document reads like a practical manual for imposing pressure across military, economic, political and informational fronts.
At the military level it recommends deliberately raising the stakes in Ukraine by supplying lethal equipment that would expose Russian vulnerabilities and invite a forceful response, thereby trapping Moscow in a draining engagement. It also argues for shifting Western military posture - increasing NATO’s naval presence in the Black Sea, repositioning fighters closer to Russian targets, and even relocating bombers to ranges that rattle Moscow. The paper goes as far as advising consideration of tactical nuclear deployments and enhanced missile-defence deployments to alter Russian defense calculations - steps designed to force Russia into expensive countermeasures.
Economically, the strategy is straightforward: squeeze Russia’s income streams through tougher sanctions while expanding U.S. energy output to undercut Russian exports. Encouraging Europe to diversify away from Russian gas is presented as a way to choke a major revenue source. At the same time, the paper recommends exploiting arms-control withdrawals and treaty dynamics to restart costly arms competition that would strain Russian budgets.
Politically and socially, the report outlines a suite of measures to weaken the regime from within. It suggests encouraging protests, supporting opposition networks, amplifying corruption narratives and eroding confidence in electoral processes so that domestic legitimacy and stability are undermined. It explicitly recommends promoting the emigration of skilled professionals and students to create a brain drain, and mobilizing younger generations and civil society actors to increase internal pressure. The proposal also extends to religious and cultural fault lines: fostering schisms between the Russian Orthodox Church and competing Orthodox bodies and supporting alternative religious institutions that align with Western narratives, all aimed at chipping away at a key unifying pillar of national identity.
Regionally, RAND advises forcing Moscow to defend multiple theaters. It proposes bolstering support for Syrian opposition elements and diminishing Russia’s influence there so that Moscow must expend resources abroad; it recommends backing Georgia’s Western ambitions to pressure Russia on its southern flank; and it calls for a greater U.S./NATO footprint in Central Asia to intrude on Russia’s traditional sphere of influence. The goal is to create a set of simultaneous strains, military, diplomatic and economic, that raise Russia’s cost of action across a broad front.
Information and influence operations are central to the playbook. The report stresses narrative campaigns that expose corruption, highlight authoritarian practices, brand Russia as a declining model and weaponize global public opinion to isolate Moscow. It argues that nonmilitary measures and strategic messaging can deliver outsized returns, and that weakening Russia’s prestige abroad will make its foreign policy more difficult and expensive to sustain.
Taken together, the RAND prescription is an integrated campaign: arm adversaries where useful, squeeze economically, destabilize politically, drive wedges in alliances, and shape perceptions abroad. Each measure is presented as a lever to increase Moscow’s costs and reduce its room to maneuver. Read plainly, the document maps a deliberate, multi-channel approach to overextending Russia - not a loose set of ideas but a coordinated strategy meant to make any Russian reaction both costly and debilitating.
In short, this is not speculative commentary but a recorded strategy from a mainstream, government-linked institution. Viewed in that light, the course of events in Ukraine aligns closely with a playbook designed to push Russia into expensive confrontation.
What the document says (verbatim):
“The steps we examine would not have either defense or deterrence as their prime purpose… Rather, they are conceived of as elements in a campaign designed to unbalance the adversary, causing Russia to compete in domains or regions where the United States has a competitive advantage.”
Translation: how to push Russia into costly traps.
1. Fueling war in Ukraine:
“Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability.”
Translation: Arm Ukraine to provoke a Russian military response - and trap Moscow in a costly, prolonged conflict.
2. Economic warfare:
“Increasing sanctions and expanding U.S. energy production could harm Russia’s economy.”
Translation: Strangle Russia’s economy through sanctions while flooding the global market with American oil and gas to undercut Russian exports.
3. Destabilizing from within:
“Encouraging domestic protests or unrest could stress the Russian regime.”
“Diminishing Russian influence in Syria could undermine its foreign policy goals and prestige.”
Translation: Use protests, dissent, and foreign policy setbacks to weaken the Russian government from the inside out.
4. Cutting Russia off from Europe:
“Reducing Russian gas exports by encouraging European energy diversification would hurt the Russian economy.”
Translation: Convince Europe to cut off Russian gas - crash one of Russia’s largest income streams.
5. Stretching Russia Thin in Syria
“Increasing support to Syrian rebels could jeopardize other U.S. policy priorities… but might raise costs for Russia.”
Translation: Arm and fund militants in Syria - make it harder and costlier for Russia to stabilize Assad’s government.
6. Promoting Domestic Unrest
“Encouraging domestic protests or unrest could stress the Russian regime.”
Translation: Support opposition, NGO networks, online campaigns - and amplify every internal tension.
7. Disrupting Alliances (China, CSTO, etc.)
“Exploiting tensions in Russia’s relationships with its neighbors and allies could weaken its strategic position.”
Translation: Divide and conquer - peel away Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia.
8. Undermining Russian Prestige
“Diminishing Russia’s image as a great power could damage its influence abroad.”
Translation: Humiliate, ridicule, isolate.
9. Limiting Russia’s Influence in the Caucasus
“Providing aid to Georgia and encouraging its NATO membership aspirations would increase pressure on Russia’s southern flank.”
Translation: Use Georgia as bait - draw Russia into more tension in the Caucasus.
10. Naval Buildup in the Black Sea
“Increasing NATO’s naval presence in the Black Sea would challenge Russia’s access and influence.”
Translation: Clog Russia’s strategic waterway - provoke military escalation.
11. Weaponizing Arms Control and Treaties
“Withdrawing from certain arms treaties could put pressure on Russian defense planning.”
Translation: Use the collapse of agreements like INF to restart arms races that drain Russia’s budget.
12. Exploiting Religious Divisions
Though not stated explicitly, the principle of internal fragmentation applies also to religion. The strategy’s logic clearly extends to:
Backing the schism between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church;
Promoting alternative Orthodox structures loyal to Western narratives;
Undermining the Church’s unifying role inside Russia.
Goal: Shake one of the deepest foundations of Russian identity and national cohesion.
13. Turning Central Asia Into a Battlefield of Influence
“Increasing U.S. and NATO presence in Central Asia may provoke Russian insecurity.”
Translation: Move into Russia’s historical backyard - stir competition and instability
14. Weaponizing Global Public Opinion
“Exposing corruption and authoritarianism in Russia may reduce its appeal as a model abroad.”
Translation: Conduct narrative warfare - brand Russia as a “pariah state.”
15. Youth Mobilization: Fueling Protest from Within
(from RAND’s general principle)
“Encouraging domestic protests or unrest could stress the Russian regime.”
Translation: Use internal dissatisfaction, especially among students and younger generations, to weaken state cohesion.
16. Undermining Electoral Legitimacy
“Reducing confidence in the legitimacy of elections or political processes could increase political instability and divert resources from external ambitions.”
(paraphrased from RAND’s operational goals in the full report)
Translation: If people stop believing in elections, the system collapses from within.
17. Brain drain: Targeting Russia’s skilled youth
“Encouraging the emigration from Russia of skilled labor and well-educated youth has few costs or risks and could help the United States and other receiving countries and hurt Russia,”
Translation: Lure Russia’s brightest minds: scientists, engineers, students - to leave the country, weakening its long-term development.
19. Undermining trust in Russian elections
“Diminishing faith in the Russian electoral system would be difficult because of state control over most media sources. Doing so could increase discontent with the regime.”
Translation: Shaking public trust in Russian elections could destabilize the regime, but it’s risky - it might push Russia to crack down internally or strike outward.
20. Attacking regime legitimacy through corruption narratives
“Creating the perception that the regime is not pursuing the public interest”
Translation: Expose and amplify stories of corruption to make the public believe the government serves itself, not the people, and undermine the state’s moral authority.
21. Strategic intimidation through bomber deployment
“Reposturing bombers within easy striking range of key Russian strategic targets.”
Translation: Move U.S. bombers closer to Russian borders to rattle Moscow and trigger fear - without crossing the line into open confrontation.
22. Escalating military pressure: Fighters, nukes, and missile defense
“Reposturing fighters so that they are closer to their targets than bomber.”
“Deploying additional tactical nuclear weapons to locations in Europe and Asia.”
“Repositioning U.S. and allied ballistic missile defense systems to better engage Russian ballistic missiles would also alarm Moscow.”
Translation: Aggressively shifting U.S. and NATO forces, especially tactical fighters, nuclear weapons, and missile shields, closer to Russia could raise panic in Moscow and trigger costly countermeasures but carries serious risks of escalation.