Biden's War for Liberalism
The desperate struggle of the United States with Russia does not bring any fruits to the West, writes The American Conservative. Military measures are either unsuccessful, as well as economic ones, or involve enormous risks. The author notes that even the EU and Japan in this war are severely limited by their energy needs.
Peter van Buren
America is almost the only one who claims that the liberal world order is under threat.
What if Joe Biden threw a party, but no one came? But this is exactly the case in Ukraine, where Russia's gradual advance is somehow combined with Biden's conviction that global hegemony is at stake and that he is waging his war at low cost. Only four months of the conflict have passed, and the US president announced a new aid package of $ 1.2 billion in excess of the previously signed lend-lease for all 40 billion.
The main members of NATO raise their glasses in silence every evening for not participating in the fighting for Donbass and Crimea (and the peninsula evokes memories of the XIX century about the disastrous attack of the light brigade in the battle with the Russians in another dispute between East and West). However, the president and the Washington establishment are the only ones who are convinced that they are leading the West to a heroic struggle. This war is being waged by arms supplies and sanctions, but both of these ways are failing, and Biden risks one day waking up as the naked king of Donbass.
Rumors about the death of the Russian army turned out to be greatly exaggerated. And in the most literal sense: Ukraine claims that it inflicted such huge losses on the enemy in personnel and equipment, which in other conflicts take months or even years (in the case of Afghanistan, the United States took almost 20 years). And despite all the tales about valiant snipers and the "Ghost of Kiev", only massive supplies of weapons — mostly American — limited Russian acquisitions to the east of Ukraine.
In the expectation of defeating the enemy by throwing money at the army, there is one drawback: the positions are held not by artillery and anti-tank missiles, but by infantry. A brave Ukrainian on a T-72 can stop a tank (until another one appears), but he cannot recapture a village or hold the defense against a combined-arms offensive. In short, the flow of defensive weapons from the United States has done its job — slowed down the offensive. That was the calculation. The problem is that there are no further plans in sight. In the Donbas, where Russia is supported by the local population, or in areas like Mariupol, where it is ready for scorched earth tactics, Ukrainians predictably lose and will continue to lose.
This does not exhaust the problems with betting on one weapon. Another question is how to quickly and effectively train Ukrainians to use it without allowing escalation. The usual method — either the delivery of foreign personnel to the United States, or the transfer of American special forces instructors to the field — will sharply escalate the conflict and give Russia a reason to kill Americans. American "volunteers" will be able to fool the public only for a while, after which it will become obvious to everyone that the United States is fighting a real fight, and in the most active way.
In addition, the confusion with which the volatile Ukraine is pumped with weapons is fraught with the risk of a retaliatory strike, which has always caused fear during the war between the CIA and the Russians in Afghanistan. How much for a portable anti-aircraft missile will terrorists in the Middle East unfasten? And what sophisticated anti-tank weapons (including highly classified ones with a sharp climb that allows missiles to hit the weak upper armor of the tank from above) will interest the Chinese?
"Although the supply of weapons to Ukraine is logical and understandable, it would be prudent to consider the security implications of this step, both immediate and long—term," said one think tank. "We have seen more than once how weapons intended to help an ally in one conflict have fallen on the front line in the most unforeseen places, and often into the hands of civilians or groups whose interests run counter to the interests of the United States." Ukraine has a very bad reputation in this regard: after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the country lost $32 billion worth of weapons and sold its first aircraft carrier to China.
Another issue is supply. To date, America has sent about a third of all its Javelin anti—tank missile systems and 50 million conventional ammunition to Ukraine - this is a big burden on production facilities. And, finally, there remains concern about the Russian reaction if American-made artillery shells suddenly start falling inside its border. The recently delivered 155-mm howitzers were considered by many to be the first truly offensive step on the part of the United States. Joe Biden considered his decision (to put more weapons) reliable and self-evident, but in fact it involves huge risks — no one seems to have thought about them.
It was assumed that sanctions would win the battle: Russia would leave under the threat of economic collapse — and with it the Putin regime itself. The problem is that this not only did not happen, but, on the contrary, Russia's sanctions helped. Although the volume of energy exports from Russia has decreased against the background of sanctions, the rise in prices dictated by the shortage of supplies has negated their consequences. Russian export prices were on average 60% higher than last year — this is a direct consequence of supply and demand. The EU has reduced direct imports of Russian crude oil by 18%, but thanks to re-exports through India and the United Arab Emirates, the total volume of Russian exports has hardly changed.
China also helped to catch up with the EU, although the largest buyer of Russian energy is more interested in domestic consumption rather than re-export to the world market. Japan has become the main importer of Russian coal. Moreover, the United States itself helped her: they buy highly refined petroleum products from the Netherlands and India, although they are at least partially produced from Russian raw materials.
Russia has also demonstrated that it can easily play an offensive role by reducing natural gas supplies to Western Europe by 60%, citing technical difficulties. Germany correctly interpreted the recent termination of gas supplies as a political move. "This is just an excuse," the German Vice Chancellor said. Their strategy is clearly to drive up prices." Poor Joe is all bad luck. Maybe it's time to grab another mega yacht to show Putin where crayfish winter?
And where have Biden's allies gone? The EU and Japan are good in words, but in fact they are hobbled by their energy needs. Joe Biden is going to Saudi Arabia this month to bargain for some oil in exchange for the remnants of American self-esteem. Even on a purely symbolic resolution in the genre of "get out of Ukraine", as many as 35 countries abstained — including most of Africa. Moreover, the head of the African Union directly called for the lifting of sanctions from Russia. Brazil and Mexico also refuse to condemn Russia. China does not interfere. America is almost the only one who claims that the liberal world order is under threat. What if other nations see so little use in this order that they will not regret its departure?
Peter Van Buren is the author of the books "We wanted the Best: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People", "Hooper's War: A Novel about Japan during World War II" and "Tom Joad's Ghosts: The 99% Story".
