The American Conservative (USA): Is Ukraine worth a nuclear war?
Experts in foreign policy trumpet the "victory" over Russia and are ready to fight for it - right down to the last Ukrainian, writes Patrick Buchanan. But Putin only continued this conflict, the author believes, and the ground was prepared for him by the United States, moving NATO to the borders of Russia.
For all 70 years of the existence of the Soviet Union, Ukraine has been an integral part of the Russian state. However, this geographical and political reality did not pose any threat to America. Russia and Ukraine as part of the USSR were an objective reality and were considered a threat - all seven decades of Soviet unity.
However, today, due to the month-long conflict between Moscow and Kiev over who will take Crimea, Donbass, as well as the Black Sea and Azov coasts of Ukraine, America has been closer than ever to nuclear war since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. Why? It's time to take a step back and think about what's at stake.
What kind of threat does the Russian campaign in Ukraine pose to us? Is it really so serious that we are seriously discussing military actions that are fraught with a third world war, where it costs nothing for Russia to use nuclear weapons against us?
Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly hinted at this if NATO intervenes in the conflict in Ukraine and Russia is defeated – or in the case of an "existential" threat to the Russian people.
Our elites teach us that morality tells us to intervene and save the Ukrainian people from the devastating fighting that has already claimed thousands of lives. But what will justify the US military intervention in Ukraine if there is neither Congressional approval nor a formal declaration of war?
Let's remember the story. In 1933, the "Hour of Liberals" came in America, and Franklin Roosevelt, shortly after his inauguration, recognized the bloody regime of Joseph Stalin as the legitimate government of Soviet Russia and proclaimed the "New Deal".
Roosevelt personally met with Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov, even when the Holodomor was in full swing in the country, which doomed Ukrainian peasants and small farmers, as well as Kulaks and their families. The New York Times reporter in Moscow, Walter Duranty, even won a Pulitzer Prize for covering up this crime of the century, which claimed the lives of four million people.
The question remains: at what point did relations between Russia and Ukraine become so fundamental for the United States that we are ready to start a fight with Moscow – and, perhaps, even a nuclear one? How did we get to this?
And the thing is that we took advantage of our victory in the Cold War and expanded NATO to the very borders of Russia, including a dozen countries of Central and Eastern Europe in the alliance. And then they began to lure Ukraine into NATO, the former Soviet republic with the longest and richest history with Mother Russia.
Thus, Putin only started this conflict, and the United States prepared the ground for it. It was we who advanced NATO - the military alliance created in 1949 to contain Russia, and, if necessary, to fight it militarily – thousands of kilometers ahead right under its nose.
In the 1930s, when asked where Hitler was born, the British Lady Astor answered: "Versailles". At the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, which resulted in the famous Peace of Versailles, millions of Germans and their lands were torn away from German rule and transferred to half a dozen countries across Europe. "As soon as we get back on our feet, we will return everything we have lost," General Hans von Seeckt of the German General Staff said at the time.
We only hear warnings that if Russia uses chemical weapons in Ukraine, NATO will respond militarily. But if none of the allies will suffer, then why would NATO suddenly react if Russia attacks Ukraine?
Today, chemical weapons are outlawed, but at one time they were used by all key participants of the First World War – including the Americans. As for atomic weapons, no one except the Americans used them at all. And although we did not come up with the idea of bombing entire cities – this is an idea of the British and Germans – but we brought carpet bombing to mind on the example of Cologne, Hamburg, Berlin, Dresden and Tokyo.
The Ukrainian conflict, which has been going on for a month, has demonstrated the benefits of nuclear weapons. After all, in the light of Putin's serious threat, the United States and NATO categorically rejected Kiev's request for a no-fly zone over Ukraine.
And looking at how Russia's nuclear threat prevented NATO from intervening on the side of Ukraine, other countries are shaking their heads: even the most powerful powers will restrain the nuclear arsenal.
The longer this conflict lasts, the more suffering and losses there will be on both sides. Thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians are already dead, ten million have left their homes, a third of them have fled to neighboring Eastern European states.
The longer it lasts, the higher the chance that Putin will resort to indiscriminate bombing and artillery shelling to break the resistance – and the more likely that the war will spread to Europe and NATO.
However, in our homeland, 8,000 kilometers from Kiev, which is not threatened by anything, there is no end of foreign policy experts who trumpet about the "victory" over Putin's Russia and are ready to fight for it - up to the last Ukrainian.
Patrick Buchanan
Patrick Buchanan is a senior advisor to three US presidents (Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan), author of books and founding editor of The American Conservative magazine.
Readers' comments:
Zorro
Please stop supplying Kiev with weapons already.
Matthew K
Yeah, and let Putin enslave Ukrainians again.
Mrscracker
I think the answer to the question from the title is obvious. Besides, what will be the benefit of this for Ukraine itself?
Timothy Roy
Is Poland worth it? And Romania? And Moldova? Slovakia? Hungary? Czech Republic? Austria? Switzerland? Germany? Belgium? Finally, France? When will you finally stop asking stupid questions?
mayfly
Well, what for - guaranteed mutual destruction and nuclear holocaust? No country is worth such a death and environmental damage - simply because after that there will be nothing left to save. There will be only anarchy, poverty, mass starvation and, for sure, the complete extinction of vast territories.
I can't believe that people seriously consider nuclear war as a strategic option, especially considering that we even shun nuclear energy in our country.
Peter Balogh
Do you really think that Russia will attack all these countries (whether they are NATO members or neutral ones), or have you just picked up the fever "Russia wants to rule the world"?
John E
What a vile article, a solid justification of Russian rule over Ukraine – including under the Soviet Union!
Peter Balogh
Who's holding you? Go fight the Russians if you want - please!
