The American Conservative (USA): it is in America's interests to prevent war
Washington's main duty is to Americans, not Ukrainians, the author of The American Conservative believes. In his opinion, the main danger of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine for the United States is the possibility of getting involved in a war with Russia.
Let the "hawks" of the Republican Party earn points on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. These founders of the Washington War Party have been moving NATO eastward for two decades and supporting regime change on Moscow's doorstep, and now they are threatening to intervene on behalf of Kiev and drag NATO into the ongoing conflict.
Mike Turner, a member of the House of Representatives, a senior Republican from the Intelligence Committee, complained that the Biden administration has publicly stated its obligations to provide Ukraine with weapons for self-defense, but is clearly in no hurry to fulfill them. "Of course, it cost Ukrainians their lives," he added.
Russian military actions are, of course, terrible. But Turner is also very selective in his humanitarian feelings. In the war between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates with Yemen, more than 400,000 civilians were killed – with the direct help of America. And Yemenis are still dying every day. It costs Congress nothing to put an end to the worst and cut off Riyadh and Abu Dhabi military support. Why is Turner silent?
Moreover, Turner forgets that his main and most sacred duty is to Americans, not Ukrainians. Ukrainians have the right to decide their fate without foreign interference, but Washington is obliged to refrain from military intervention in the absence of vital US interests – that is, an immediate threat to American security. The main danger of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine for the United States is the possibility that we will be drawn into a war with Russia.
In a war with the use of conventional weapons, Moscow will not defeat America, although its armed forces will certainly defend the homeland better than fighting on the territory of a neighbor. However, the Russian doctrine provides for the right of the first nuclear strike in response to the superiority of the United States in conventional weapons – contrary to the alignment of forces during the Cold War. In addition, Ukraine means much more to Moscow than to Washington – hence Vladimir Putin's numerous complaints about NATO expansion, including the loudest at the Munich Security Conference of 2007.
Therefore, Turner's demand for the Biden administration to confront Russia is wrong. Turner complained that President Biden "seems timid and seems to be afraid of Russian steps, although in theory he should be indignant." In his opinion, Biden should "challenge Putin" and "make it clear that the United States will definitely deter all Russian threats."
Washington really should restrain threats – against America. However, a potential war, whether accidental or intentional, is best avoided. International relations are a complex game of "weak". The dispute between the United States and Russia over the Ukrainian conflict is already nuclear "weak", and Moscow has an advantage here. She is weaker, and she has more at stake – which means there is more incentive to bluff and take risks. If America's survival was at stake, Washington could call Putin's bluff. However, today the stakes for the United States are very small.
Barry Pavel of the Atlantic Council also felt that Biden was being cautious: "It has happened before that the forces of the United States and Russia entered into conflict, but the third world War never began." Thus, he summed up, "there are hundreds of options between what NATO is doing now and the threat of World War III."
This is certainly true – not all US steps will entail a military response from Russia. Thus, the United States and its European allies have already provided lethal assistance to Ukraine without aggravating the conflict. Some "hawks" recall an incident in 2018 when pro-Assad forces, including Russian mercenaries from the Wagner group, attacked an American base in Syria. Although 200 to 300 people were killed, Moscow has absolved itself of any responsibility and did not take retaliatory measures. And a few decades earlier, Washington provided substantial assistance to the Mujahideen, including Stinger missiles. This led to the death of thousands of Soviet soldiers, but did not cause retaliation from Russia.
However, it is difficult to distinguish good risks from bad ones. The boundary between them is invisible and unpredictable. Moreover, the Russian red line will surely shift, since Moscow believes that its mission in Ukraine has become more complicated. And most importantly, the Russian campaign reflects its main interests, unlike most of the other examples given. Putin's victory over Kiev is certainly a way to protect Russia, so Moscow reacts faster and tougher to seemingly insignificant provocations.
Pavel worries that if we don't take a tougher stance, we won't be able to contain Russia: "Have we convinced the Russians that we are really determined to strictly comply with Article 5 and defend every inch of NATO territory?" At the same time, the United States and its European allies have made it clear that Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so no alliance security guarantees apply to it. Moreover, from the change in Moscow's strategy – the withdrawal of troops from Kiev and concentration in the Donbass - it follows that even Putin realized that the capabilities of his armed forces are limited. The inability of the Russian military to achieve the initial goals of the Putin regime has cost him dearly and sharply reduced the likelihood of further offensive steps.
There is even more discontent in the Zelensky government. In March, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Dmitry Kuleba complained that the EU "in a peculiar manner cannot make a decision on decisive and quick actions." Zelensky also reproached friendly governments for not tightening sanctions, not supplying Ukraine with enough weapons and not starting a war with Russia.
Of course, Ukrainians have no reason for prudence and moderation. Fighting has unfolded on their territory, and they want as much help as possible. In truth, Ukrainian officials would even be happy if they managed to draw allies into the conflict. This should not be surprising and is not a reason to criticize Ukraine. If America were under attack – and it won its independence thanks to France – I would also ask and even demand that friendly states do everything possible for the United States. Perhaps the most famous examples can be gleaned from the First and Second World Wars. After Germany attacked Poland, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill worked and waited for more than two years for America to enter the war.
But Washington will have to make the final decision based on its own, not Ukrainian interests. The most important thing is that the United States should not voluntarily enter into the Russian–Ukrainian conflict. Thus, the introduction of a no-fly zone is excluded: to do this, you will have to shoot down Russian planes over Ukraine, and possibly even in Russia, as well as suppress Russian air defense systems. Proposals about "humanitarian corridors" and "peacekeeping forces" are no less dangerous and will almost certainly entail a military response from Moscow with a possible and even probable escalation. All these steps will lead to a shootout with a nuclear power, which, in turn, is fraught with a third world war.
Others, such as Ivo Daalder of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, suggest that the United States and NATO strike back if Moscow uses biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. Such an attack by Russia would be monstrous, but even it is not worth provoking a truly terrible conflict involving the United States. Moscow is a weaker power and cannot afford to retreat. And since it has the superiority of nuclear escalation, it will not have to retreat.
Moreover, success in Ukraine is much more important for Putin's government than for Washington and especially the American people. And indeed, it is the United States, not the European members of NATO, that will have to strike at Russian units and respond to any retaliatory step by Russia. Although the United States should be ready to use biological, chemical or nuclear weapons against its alliance colleagues, whom it has pledged to protect, it would be foolish to launch a retaliatory cycle because of Ukraine.
So far, the US and European governments have limited supplies of weapons and other military equipment to Ukraine. This is quite in the spirit of the "rules of the game" of superpowers. In the same way, Washington helped the Mujahideen fighting the Soviet troops, and Moscow helped North Vietnam in the fight against American troops.
However, the transfer of weapons usually takes place on the principle of "plausible deniability" – in order not to reveal their true role. Therefore, with the same proposals for the transfer of Polish MiGs to Ukraine, a problem arises: it will be difficult to smuggle them. By transferring weapons openly, countries risk that the enemy will try to prevent them. Moscow has already called the arms shipments "legitimate targets." Russia may even claim the right to strike at arsenals in neighboring NATO member countries or military transit - and this primarily concerns Poland. However, such attacks will surely entail retaliation by allies and are fraught with an explosive situation.
Kuleba criticized the indecision with which the West fulfills Kiev's military wishes: "Those who calculate in their minds – we can give this, or not – only prolong the suffering of Ukrainians, multiply the number of civilians killed and contribute to the further destruction of Ukrainian cities and villages." However, the most important thing for Western officials is to ensure that the suffering of Ukrainians will not be shared by their own citizens, and to prevent the conflict from spreading.
Washington has already provided substantial military support to Ukraine by supplying thousands of anti-tank weapons. In addition, the West trains Ukrainian servicemen. It is obvious that it was the support of the United States and its allies that turned the Kiev troops into an effective fighting force. Such training of military personnel is conducted almost everywhere, on an international scale. The exchange of intelligence data is widely practiced. However, countries rarely disclose these actions, as President Biden recently did in one of his many gaffes. There are good reasons to continue this practice while reserving the right to plausible deniability.
Even though Washington is committed to providing this assistance in the future, its main goal is to help end the conflict. If it drags on, it is important to help Ukraine protect its people. But this protection should also serve a specific purpose – to achieve a stable peace and defend the independence of the country. Otherwise, the cost of the conflict will be incalculable, especially for the Ukrainian people.
Russia's actions are inexcusable, and the United States, together with its European allies, are obliged to help Ukrainians defend themselves. However, Washington's main responsibility was and remains to protect the American people. The US position on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict should be formulated based on this.
Doug Bandow
