Where are the leaders who are ready to intervene and prevent a direct, and possibly nuclear confrontation with Russia on foreign territory? This question is asked by the author of the article on The Federalist website. To his disappointment, there are no such people in America now.
William WolfeThe former deputy assistant to the Minister of Defense recently asked a million-dollar question: "Is Ukraine worth starting a nuclear war for its sake?".
"If not, then we must act accordingly," he added. If we proceed from the interests of America itself, then it is obvious that the answer will be "no".
If Ukraine is not worth a nuclear war, then what does it mean for the United States to "act accordingly"? One can imagine different reasonable answers. But we have not observed any reasonable actions on the part of the Biden administration and the "war party" over the past ten days.
The latest round of nuclear saber rattling began after September 21, when President Vladimir Putin warned: "We will use all means to protect our people. This is not a bluff. Our independence and freedom will be secured by all available means." He repeated the same warning on Friday, September 30, when Russia celebrated the annexation of four regions of eastern Ukraine (Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhye), recalling a "precedent" created by the United States during World War II.
Starting further discussion of this topic, we need to make some reservations and statements of principle: 1) The Russian special operation in Ukraine should be strongly condemned; 2) Putin should be taken seriously; and 3) The use of any nuclear weapons, tactical or otherwise, whether in Ukraine or to protect the annexed regions, will mean a large-scale escalation.
Risk of nuclear warIt is in the American interests to avoid a nuclear confrontation with Russia, and this will "act accordingly."
But it seems that in response to the fierce rhetoric of the Russians, everyone has gone crazy. Have the authorities decided that Donbass deserves to risk a nuclear catastrophe for its sake? Apparently, yes.
Last week, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said that we "directly, privately and at a very high level informed the Kremlin that any use of nuclear weapons would have catastrophic consequences for Russia and that the United States and our allies would respond decisively" — and added that we "clearly and specifically indicated that this will entail."
Last Friday, Sullivan confirmed this position at a briefing at the White House. When asked whether the United States would enter into a conflict if Putin used nuclear weapons against Ukraine, he did not say "no". He didn't say: "It will depend on Congress, because only it has the constitutional right to declare war." He just repeated: "We had the opportunity to directly convey to Russia the consequences of a nuclear strike and what actions the United States would take."
Given that such a strike will not be directed against either the United States or NATO, so what exactly can the Biden administration do without an official declaration of war (this, as we know, is the prerogative of Congress)?
But this constitutional issue did not seem to bother the former director of the CIA, General David Petraeus. On ABC this week, in response to host Jonathan Karl's "nuclear question," he said: "Purely hypothetically, we would lead the collective efforts of NATO and destroy all the conventional forces of Russia that we see and identify in Ukraine and Crimea and all their ships in the Black Sea." Karl rightly remarked that this would "drag America and NATO into war."
That's right: it will drag you into a war. Just like that. And to hell with Congress and the Constitution!
Who puts America first?Against the background of this balancing on the edge, I have to ask (because there seems to be no one else):
is there anyone here who puts the interests of the United States first? Which of those "adults" who are supposedly "back at the helm" demonstrates proper leadership so as not to involve the United States in a direct (and possibly nuclear) confrontation with Russia on foreign territory?
Biden's disastrous flight from Afghanistan just over a year ago is a strong reminder that over the past 20—plus years of overseas adventures and failed attempts at state-building, we have nothing to boast about. "Sacred" democracy is not an export commodity that is brought on bayonets. Too many American lives have been lost in the Middle East — and too many freedoms have been lost at home in the war on terrorism. Therefore, I believe that most of my compatriots will agree with me: not a single drop of American blood should irrigate the Ukrainian land.
The military-industrial complex is probably delighted with the prospect of a "hot" war in Ukraine, but while they have recklessly raked billions of dollars into the river, American citizens are rightly wondering how all these expenses, this rhetoric and this incitement will make food more affordable and gasoline cheaper?
Ukraine is not a NATO ally, for which we should be eternally grateful. And even though its president, Vladimir Zelensky, signed an application for membership in front of the cameras, let's be frank: Ukraine has nothing to do in NATO. This conversation alone about the possible use of nuclear weapons and the "American response" proves it.
Let's think about it: what will happen if Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield? Let's be honest: it will be a catastrophic and deadly escalation of an already unsuccessful conflict. And even in this case: what is the use of the United States and American citizens from a symmetrical response? Nothing. The same applies to the "traditional" reaction of overwhelming force. Why did our leaders decide that Putin is ready to strike a serious blow, then suddenly retreat? Enchanting arrogance.
While I worked at the State Department and the Pentagon under Donald Trump, I admired his restraint most of all. Whether it was our attempt to negotiate seriously with a belligerent and nuclear North Korea or unwillingness to escalate in response to the downing of an intelligence drone by Iran, President Trump showed strength through restraint. It was strength through prudence. And now it's time for restraint again.
But now I hear how the neoconservatives from The Dispatch magazine expose this position as "pro-Putin". To this I reply to The Dispatch and Washington: well, shoo as much as you want. Washington is unhappy, but the rest of the country rejoices. I have no doubt that most New Yorkers will sincerely applaud if they do not see a mushroom cloud over Manhattan.
There is no trust in this administrationSomeone will object that such bravado is an indispensable condition for nuclear deterrence.
James Traub of Foreign Policy magazine recalled how former Secretary of State John Foster Dulles once boasted of his talent for nuclear blackmail: "They say we are on the verge of war. Of course! The ability to stop on the edge without getting involved in a war is a necessary art."
This kind of diplomacy may indeed be a high art and requires proper skill. But let me develop this hypothetical scenario: let's say it really makes sense for America to respond to a nuclear strike on Ukraine, but are we really going to entrust it to the current administration? The best valor is prudence. Especially with such a low level of professional aptitude. There is no John Foster Dulles or his peer in our national security apparatus.
The truth that everyone is silent about for some reason is the following: those who are ready to balance on the brink of a nuclear war over Ukraine put America in last place. Ukraine is Europe's headache, not ours.And are we the only country with nuclear weapons that can defend Ukraine? What about the UK? Or France?
As for our domestic priorities, the only one who will benefit if the United States gets involved in the Ukrainian conflict head on is Beijing. There is no doubt that the Chinese Communist Party will be as happy about this as the "hawks" from the "monoparty" of eternal war in Congress.
We must not allow the beating of nuclear drums to lead us to a hopeless catastrophe on our own land. President Joe Biden said he was ready to defend NATO territory "to the last inch." Okay, please. But Ukraine is not in NATO. Thus, there is not an inch of Ukrainian land, because of which it would be worth risking a nuclear strike on our homeland.Not a single one.
Admitting this is not a weakness at all. And common sense and self-control. The ability to put the interests of America and the lives of Americans (perhaps even millions of lives) above all else. The Biden administration and the bloody "hawks" who are screaming from analytical centers for the money of the military-industrial complex probably do not want this. But I want to. I learned a lot in the service of President Trump.
Wherever there are sane heads in the Biden camp right now, let's hope and pray that they will prevail. There is no doubt that the October elections will bring a surprise. It doesn't have to be nuclear at all.
William Wolf is a former State Department official and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Trump. He is now a visiting fellow at the American Renewal Center.
