Center for American and Arab Studies

If this story had come from anyone else, it would have been considered a fictional plot for a Hollywood movie.  It had intrigue and action.  All it needed was a headline action star like a younger Sylvester Stallone.

The plot, in short, was that a top-secret deep-sea diving team, that was so secret that it wasn’t even part of America’s Special Forces Command, sabotaged Russia’s Nord Stream natural gas pipelines so Russia couldn’t pressure Western nations into ending support for Ukraine.

Most would have considered it pure fiction if it wasn’t for the author of the story – Seymour Hersh, the Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter who has revealed such stories as American war crimes in Vietnam, the secrets of Israel’s nuclear weapons program, and the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

But this is more than a mere story about a top secret military operation.  If true, it means that the United States has carried out an act of war against Russia and by shutting off the Russian natural gas, has threatened the lives and livelihoods of the citizens of its NATO allies.

It wasn’t the secret that was planned thanks to the elderly President Biden, who gave the operation away.  A year ago, at a press conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Biden said, “If Russia invades [Ukraine]…then there will no longer be Nord Stream 2.  We will bring an end to it.”

When a reporter asked the president how he would do it, Biden responded, “I promise you we will be able to do it.

By the time Biden said that the US was well into the planning.  That had begun when the Nord Stream 2 was completed in 2021 and Russian troops were massing on the Ukraine border.   Norway was brought into the planning because they had deep sea diving experience from operating gas wells in the North Sea.  Norway is also a gas producer and could fill some of the shortage of Russian gas.

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan formed a task force with officials from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, the State department, and the Treasury.

It was agreed that a more vigorous action was needed because economic sanctions wouldn’t stop Putin.

Several plans were studied, but everyone agreed that secrecy was needed and the location near the Danish Island of Bornholm required the utmost secrecy.  Something like a bombing from an aircraft or destroying it with a submarine would be too obvious.

CIA Director William Burns assembled a working group to develop a plan to use deep sea divers to carry out the mission.

The team finally focused on placing shaped charges on the outside of the pipelines and then remotely detonating them weeks or months after the charges were laid.

The mines were laid during the NATO exercise BALTOPS.  The detonation would come after a sonar buoy was dropped that sent out a specific noise signal to trigger the blast.

The bombing went off when a Norwegian P8 surveillance aircraft dropped off the sonar buoy on September 26 during a routine flight.  A few hours later, three of the four pipelines were destroyed.

The US denied responsibility (and still does) and there were few who could contradict the White House.  Congress wasn’t informed and there was no briefing for the “Gang of Eight,” the heads of the intelligence committees.  The operation didn’t go through the Special Forces command.  Only a few national security people in agencies like the CIA were aware of it.  The US and Norway had covered themselves by briefing some NATO allies before the attack.

But who was really responsible is still a mystery.  Denmark and Sweden carried out investigations and determined that the blasts were a result of sabotage, but they were unable to determine which nation was guilty.

The Russians obviously had little interest in destroying their pipeline, which was the result of over a decade of work and billions of dollars.  It had also become the cornerstone of the policy to use the Nord Stream pipelines to pressure the Germans to stop supporting and sending arms to Ukraine.  The pipelines also allowed German companies to sell the additional inexpensive gas to neighboring countries.

Obviously, the one nation that could be suspected was the US.  The destruction of the pipeline helped bring Germany into line as an ally of Ukraine.  At the same time, US companies were helping to alleviate the gas shortage by shipping LNG to Europe.

What Happens now?

Attacking the Nord Stream pipeline is considered an act of war.  However, the US and Norway have denied the Hersh story and Russia doesn’t have any tangible proof.  Since some of Hersh’s previous investigative reports have been questioned like his story on Osama bin Laden, Russia can’t do any more than officially protest.

That, they did, even before the Hersh story came out.  Secretary of State for Political affairs Victoria Nuland said on January 26, “I am, and I think the administration is very gratified to know Nord Stream 2 is now… a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea.”

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said, “This is not only the direct participation of the United States in the explosions of the Nord Stream pipelines, but Ms. Nuland has also made a confession.”

Aside from official protests, there is much that Russia can do.  The American attack on a Russian strategic asset has gone further than merely sending arms and intelligence to the Ukrainians.  Russia may decide to carry out sabotage that hurts the American infrastructure but gives them “plausible deniability.”

One logical option would be sabotaging the arms shipments.  There doesn’t have to be a dramatic act.  Russia could hack transportation networks in Europe so shipments of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and other supplies would be slowed down on their way to Ukraine.  Sabotage of American gas or petroleum refining facilities would also be tit-for-tat.

The biggest problem with these retaliations is that Russia and the West are slow walking into a real, not a proxy war.  The Nord Stream pipeline attack was a step further – a direct attack on a Russian asset by an American military unit.

This is more than merely sending arms.  It promises more escalations.

53 years ago, a young investigative reporter revealed an American massacre of Vietnamese during the VietNam War, which was a proxy war between the USSR and the US.

That reporter was Seymour Hersh.

It seems that the lessons of VietNam have been forgotten as American officials rush into a new war just like Lyndon Johnson and his advisors did 60 years ago.

A near weeklong drama ended on Saturday when an American F-22 fighter shot down a Chinese balloon off the coast of South Carolina with a Sidewinder missile.  The wreckage fell into shallow water about 47 feet deep which guarantees that much of the wreckage will be recovered.

Although the flight of the balloon has ended, the fallout will continue.  What will the US discover about Chinese intelligence gathering by inspecting the wreckage?  Why did the Chinese use a balloon instead of using one of its satellites?  How will China react to the American actions?

Undoubtedly China has found a new way to “tickle” American, Canadian, and North American Air Defense systems (NORAD) much like Russian bombers who fly near Alaskan and East Coast American air space.  It is less threatening than a bomber and can yield additional intelligence as it flies over the Continental United States.

There was the diplomatic dance around the event.  China said it was a civilian meteorological balloon that has strayed off course.  The American Department of Defense noted that the balloon was sitting over part of America’s ballistic missile system.

The DoD did say the balloon flight, “violated US airspace and violated international law.”  It also called the action “unacceptable.”  It also alluded to the fact that balloon’s travel was controlled and not just subject to winds.

Biden was briefed by the DoD Wednesday, at which time he ordered it to be shot down, if it posed no threat to life or property.  The Defense Department let the balloon continue its flight across the United States and shot it down as soon as it was over the ocean, but still in American airspace.

Shooting the balloon down was a bipartisan desire.  Trump was clear in how he would react.  “SHOOOT DOWN THE BALLOON,” Trump responded on his social account.

The Montana congressional delegation was even more forceful.  “I’d pull the trigger if they let me,” texted Congressman Zinke.

“It’s unacceptable to allow communist China to invade out airspace,” said Congressman Rosendale.

The biggest US diplomatic response was Secretary of State Blinken postponing his trip to China next week.

The Chinese Protest Too Much

One can assume that this is not a Chinese civilian weather balloon.  Projects of this size are not purely civilian in China.  The Chinese government would have a say in starting a project that would potentially fly over the US.  The balloon operators would also require a final approval before launching it.

The flight path of the balloon told us much and gave American intelligence an idea of what the Chinese wanted to know.  It evidently flew over the Aleutian Islands, over Alaska and Canada before entering the airspace of the Continental United States.

The balloon’s ability to loiter over a given place gives it abilities that a fast-moving satellite doesn’t have.

This is not a random route taken by a weather balloon that has gone off course.  It followed the Great Circle route that aircraft take to fly from the US to China.  It is also the same route that Chinese bombers would take from China to heartland America – either to attack the American nuclear ICBM missiles like those at Malmstrom Air Force Base or attack cities in the American Midwest.

The 60,000-foot altitude is like the altitude Chinese bombers would fly.

If there is metrological equipment onboard, as the Chinese claim, it would give the Chinese the weather conditions at altitudes that their bombers would fly.

But there are other possibilities.  Russia regularly flies bombers towards the US to see how quickly interceptor aircraft are launched and what radar bands are used to track their aircraft.

Of course, Russian aircraft withdrew after being challenged.  In this case, the balloon continued its route unchallenged.

Given the size of the instrument package on the Chinese balloon, it could pick up air defense radar emissions, communications from Air Force bases, frequencies used by the US, Canada, and NORAD, and tactics of intercepting aircraft.  This information would be pure gold for any nation planning an air attack on the US.  Much of this intelligence could not be gained by merely flying close to US airspace.

It could also pick up cell phone communications.

Another possibility would be to gather information that might be used in planning a hypersonic missile attack on the US. The Chinese would want additional intelligence if this was the intended route of hypersonic missiles targeting American ICBM bases.

And the balloon did fly over some US ICBM bases.

So, why didn’t the US shoot down the balloon until it had reached the Atlantic?  Obviously, the story that it could cause civilian casualties and damage was partially right.

But that wasn’t the whole story.

America wanted to capture the balloon and its equipment for intelligence purposes. The shallow depth of the Atlantic off South Carolina would make it easier to recover.  A water landing would limit damage, especially if the balloon acted as a drogue and slowed the craft as it descended.  However, it’s logical to assume that the craft has self-destruct devices in it and would be ordered to explode if there is a possibility of capture.

Although it hasn’t been mentioned much, the US was also spying on the spy balloon.

No matter its purpose, the craft was sending telemetry back to China.  Undoubtedly, the National Security Agency (and many other agencies) were capturing, storing, and studying the data being sent back to China.  Although it was likely encrypted, the NSA might have broken the code or at least knew how to make use of the telemetry.

If the NSA was spying on the craft, they would have also learned something about how China uses it communications network.  Did the balloon communicate directly with China?  Did the data go to a Chinese communications satellite first?  Was a Chinese agent on the ground the link between the balloon and China?

Of course, the Chinese could have used a top-secret code machine to encode the data, but it would be unlikely for the Chinese to risk sending top secret coding equipment unguarded over US airspace, even though it probably had a self-destruct mechanism on the machine.

Chinese Reaction to the Shooting down of its Balloon

Chinese reaction was muted until the balloon was brought down.  China’s Foreign Ministry stated its “strong dissatisfaction and protest against the US’s use of force to attack civilian unmanned airships.”

US Secretary of Defense Austin accused China of using the balloon to “surveil strategic sites in the Continental United States.”

If China continues to push the civilian nature of the flight, expect the US to bring out a piece of the craft that has no meteorological uses, but is clearly for intelligence applications.

The US could also use this incident and the reported flight of a Chinese balloon over Latin America to improve relations with its southern neighbors.

The Chinese have several options to “save face.”  One can expect China to use its claim of sovereign rights over the South China Sea to board an American civilian craft and tow it to a Chinese port.  It could also force a US civilian or military aircraft to land in China on the grounds that they had violated Chinese airspace.

Another, more dramatic move would be to attack an American spy satellite with one of its hunter killer satellites.  The excuse would be that the satellite was involved in intelligence gathering and it was involved in overflying China at the time it was shot down.  The move would be a demonstration of China’s strategic capability in space and would demonstrate American military weakness.

What would Biden do in such a case?

Although the Chinese balloon incident is over, expect China to find a way to retaliate.

What are they getting, how are they going to use them, and will they help?

In the last week, the political logjam that prevented the sending of tanks to Ukraine seemed to break up. Britain is sending Challenger IIs, Germany is sending Leopard 2s, France is sending AMX 10s, and the US is sending M1 Abrams tanks. Additionally, Germany has agreed to allow other countries using the Leopard 2 to send them to Ukraine.

Two factors seemed to help bring about the agreement – Ukraine’s aggressive move against corruption amongst high ranked officials and the jointly timed agreements by the US and Germany to send some of their tanks.

But many questions remain about Ukraine’s ability to push the Russians back.  And, there is the growing concern about escalation – even up to nuclear war.

New Shipments

The critical shipments are Main Battle Tanks (MBT) which are expected to dominate the older Russian tanks.  The other shipments are Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFV) which allows infantry to keep pace with the fast moving tanks, dismount to carry out missions the tanks can’t do, and provide covering fire for dismounted infantry.

CHALLENGER II.  This British tank is one of the best in the world and the British were the first nation to promise to deliver tanks.  It has highly advanced armor that is still a secret even after three decades.  It also has advanced optics and communications to target the enemy.  Britain has promised a dozen tanks (a squadron).

The biggest weakness is that only a dozen are being sent to Ukraine and Britain has few Challenger IIs to allow it to send a sizable number to turn the tide against the Russians.  They however are sending other equipment to equip the armored unit.

AMX 10 RC.  The French are sending a light tank clone.  Unlike a tank, it runs on wheels instead of treads.  It uses 105 mm ammunition which is unique to the French.  It can’t defeat an MBT, but can destroy lighter medium tanks.  However, it is fast on roads and is designed for reconnaissance.  Unfortunately, it is slow on the muddy type of terrain that may be found in Ukraine.

The French are moving to a newer tank design, so this tank will become obsolete.  The French are intending to send about a dozen.

M1 Abrams Tank.  This American tank was designed for a war between NATO and the Soviet Union, so it makes for a good fit in the Ukraine War.  31 are being sent, which will make up a battalion.  It is powered by a gas turbine, which can use kerosene, and various jet fuels.  It has excellent optics, thermal imaging, and stabilization so it can fire even while moving.  It uses the same secret armor that the British Challenger II uses.

Many consider the Abrams to be the best tank in the world.

The downside is that it requires lots of maintenance and a qualified mechanic requires three months of training, although the tank crew can learn their job in a month.  It requires a good logistics system to remain combat ready.

Another problem is that the US will not be sending tanks from its prepositioned reserves in Europe, which means that it will take several months to field them in Ukraine.

Ukraine’s allies are also sending Infantry Fighting Vehicles.

M2 Bradley.  This American IFV was designed in the 1980s, although it has been modernized many times.  However, the US is retiring the Bradley, so the US may be sending many more in the future.

The Bradley was designed to withstand the radiation of tactical nuclear warfare.  Its armor was designed to defeat the cannon of the Soviet BMP, which was its probable opponent at the time.

It carries the TOW anti-tank missile, which can defeat Russian tank armor.  It also has a 20mm chain cannon which can penetrate the armor of lighter armored vehicles.

The US is sending 50 M1 Bradleys to Ukraine and current video of these vehicles on trains indicates that some of them may very well be in Ukraine already.

Marder.  This is a German IFV.  It was designed to operate with the German Leopard tank and has the same level of protection and mobility as the Leopard 2.

Germany has 390 Marders in service and many more in storage.  They have indicated that they will give 40 to the Ukrainians.  Since the Germans consider them a defensive weapon, they haven’t had as many political problems as exporting the Leopard II to Ukraine.

Leopard II.  The future of Ukraine’s rearmament program this year depends on the Leopard II.  Like the American M1 Abrams and British Challenger II, it is considered a world class MBT.  And, since there are 3,600 built and there are over 2,000 in various European countries, it promises the number of tanks that would dramatically change the balance of power in Ukraine.

Now that Germany has authorized sending this tank to Ukraine, several European countries (plus Canada) have promised over 100 tanks to create 2 to 4 Leopard battalions.

Training

Much has been made of the time it would take to train tank crews.  However, depending on the level of training, the time can take as little as 4 weeks or as long as several months.  However, American officers who have worked with the Ukrainians say the Ukrainians are fast learners.

Basic training for a tank crew can take as little as a month.  This includes classes on operating the vehicle, using the cannon, and basic tactics.  The problem is that this doesn’t teach crews to operate in conjunction with other tank crews at the company or battalion level.  This requires additional training and training exercises up to the battalion level.

If Ukraine intends to train its forces in battalion or brigade level maneuvers, the time goes up exponentially, although the ability of the tank crews also increases exponentially.

If Ukraine intends to create new units and field all the tanks, IFVs, artillery, logistical support vehicles, engineers, etc. as a cohesive combat team, it will take months.

Doctrine

One reason that training a large unit takes time is that the NATO countries are teaching Ukrainians the doctrine of combined arms.  Combined Arms Operations use combinations of infantry, mobile firepower, offensive and defensive fire, engineers, and aviation assets to defeat the enemy.

This is something the Russians haven’t been able to master.  They tend to use tanks, artillery, and infantry separately, which is inefficient because no single arm of the military can decisively defeat a determined defender.  An example was the fighting north of Kiev, where the Russian advance was bogged down in the Pripyat Marshes because they had to rely on armored vehicles travelling down a single hard top road.  Infantry covering the flanks on foot would have made the drive more successful.

As new tanks and IFVs are delivered to Ukraine, they will have to be integrated into new units that can carry out combined arms operations.

The number of MBTs and IFVs will impact how the equipment is used and deployed.  For instance, the British Challenger II tank unit is too small for frontline service.  It will probably become a mobile reserve in the north of Ukraine.

The American Abrams tank won’t be operational until the tanks are delivered in several months.  Until then, American equipment will be limited to a mechanized infantry role using the Bradley IFV.  The Bradleys could operate independently against infantry and Russian IFVs like the BMP.  One Bradley tactic is to dismount the soldiers from four Bradleys and then move the vehicles to an oversight position where they can cover the infantry with its 20mm chain gun and anti-tank missiles.  The Bradleys also use a hunter-killer team of one tank and three Bradleys.

The future of the Ukrainian offensive against the Russians depends on the Leopard 2.  Two to four Leopard 2 Brigades, along with IFVs like the Marder or Bradley could have a serious impact.  The tracked tanks and IFVs could cut through the muddy terrain of Zaporizhia to the Sea of Azov.  This would cut off the land bridge to Crimea. This type of offensive would be ideal for vehicles like the Bradley or Marder.  They would cover the flanks of the tanks and be able to dismount their infantry if there are tactical obstacles slowing down the armor.

The key to winning this war is for the Ukrainians to capture or seriously threaten Crimea.  The promised armored vehicles could help Ukraine to do that. But Russian are threatening to attack these new shipments on route, time will tell if the Russians succeed in destroying or damaging the shipments before reaching the battle front.