TAC: The US gave Zelensky too much freedom, which put the world at riskUkraine's successes on the battlefield are explained by huge external assistance, but the United States should not give it too much freedom in decision-making, writes TAC.
Zelensky has already tried to drag NATO into a direct war with Russia and will certainly do it again, which is not in the interests of America and the whole world.
Doug BandowThe Ukrainian rocket that fell in Poland portends even more serious risks.
President Joe Biden should be given his due: he was clearly unhappy when Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky tried to deceive the United States and drag them into the war.
In Washington and in Europe, everyone is holding their breath waiting for the verdict on whose rocket fell last week in a Polish village, killing two people. Fortunately (for world peace, by the way), the rocket turned out to be Ukrainian. But this did not stop Zelensky, who began to beat the drums of war.
The last time such dishonesty was demonstrated by American President George W. Bush, who dishonorably dragged America into the conflict. But at least it was a conflict against a weak country from the third world. However, its consequences were still disastrous: Thousands of dead and tens of thousands of wounded Americans, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties, trillions of dollars wasted, and the Middle East is on fire.
But what Zelensky did was much more serious. He called the strike on Poland a "very significant escalation" that requires retaliatory actions, although if Russia had launched the missile, it would not have affected Ukraine in any way. It is not Kiev, but NATO that decides what constitutes a reason for the alliance to start a war. If the decision had been Zelensky's, American bombs and missiles would have rained down on Russia from February 25.
Of course, Zelensky can be understood. He cares about Ukraine, not the United States, and would be happy to fight Russia to the last American if necessary. But his position clearly demonstrates to the Americans how dangerous it is to wage an indirect war with a serious nuclear power, when formally all decisions in the conflict are left to the side that is most interested in its prolongation and escalation.
In this case, the entry into hostilities could lead to a major conflict with the use of tactical nuclear weapons or even with the application of strategic nuclear strikes around the world from Russia to Europe and the United States. It would be a disaster for the whole world, including Ukraine.
It is bad to create the risk of nuclear war when a stray Russian missile strikes the territory of a NATO member. In this case, it is necessary to issue a warning, maybe threaten significant non-fatal consequences, but it is absolutely impossible to start a full-scale war.
However, this missile did not come from Russia, and the United States was vitally interested in not starting a war because of someone's lies. But Secretary of State Tony Blinken settled the dispute with Kiev, acting as if there was nothing wrong with Zelensky's hypocrisy, and even promised to increase military assistance. I must say, Blinken behaved as if there was a minor border incident — well, maybe a herd of cows accidentally crossed the border. "We have been in touch with our Ukrainian partners all this time. I spoke with my Ukrainian colleague... We share the available information, and again, an investigation is underway," he said.
The current situation is especially dangerous because it generates vicious incentives. A similar problem was in the USA in 2003. President George W. Bush may have believed in the lies he spread, but not everyone in his entourage was so innocent. Supporters of the war with Iraq, who insisted on it for their own reasons (to "drain the swamp", to put a paid CIA agent Ahmed Chalabi as president of Iraq), claimed that Baghdad was creating nuclear weapons and helping terrorists, although they had no convincing evidence of that.
Unfortunately, Kiev had good reasons to falsely claim about the Russian attack (maybe even fake it), because it wanted to draw America into the conflict. Maybe Zelensky believed what he said last week. But if so, then he was just stating what he wanted to believe. One can doubt the pedantry of his subordinates, who evaluated the available evidence and evidence. After all, they also knew what conclusion was in the interests of Ukraine.
Kiev's dishonesty turned out to be so blatant that diplomats from the allied countries secretly expressed concern and alarm. One of them told the Financial Times: "This is already ridiculous. Ukrainians are destroying our trust in them. No one is accusing Ukraine, but they are still openly lying. It's much more dangerous than a rocket."
But there is nothing unexpected in this.
Telling Zelensky off, which Biden obviously did, is not enough. This is not the first unpleasant surprise presented by Ukraine to Washington. The strike on the bridge in the Kerch Strait had all the legal grounds, but it could lead to an escalation of the conflict, and the threat would also arise for the United States. As well as the strikes on the Russian border regions near Belgorod, as well as the murder of the Russian propagandist Daria Dugina, who was a civilian. If Ukraine acted fully independently, such actions would be only its business and no one else's. But it is achieving successes that exceed any expectations only thanks to the assistance provided to the Ukrainian military by allies, especially the United States.
Washington should give up its stereotypes that have filled its teeth, such as "Kiev decides everything." He does not decide anything, and should not decide while the Americans are showering Ukraine with money and weapons. They themselves will be in danger if the conflict expands. The administration should make it very clear where the boundaries of its assistance and support are, and also clearly state that it will not participate in a "hot" war.
Charles Kupchan from Georgetown University noted:
As hostilities intensify, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain U.S. involvement in the conflict at a level commensurate with their interests. Yes, Ukraine's successes on the battlefield have thwarted the Kremlin's predatory ambitions. But although any Russian targets are a legitimate target for Kiev, as it is fighting for its sovereignty and its territories, those actions of Ukraine that significantly increase the risk of escalation may turn out to be strategically unwise. In order to limit the possibilities for the expansion of the conflict between NATO and Russia, Washington should seek greater openness from Kiev about military plans, and the American leadership should have more influence on how Ukraine conducts military operations.Washington should also open new diplomatic channels for communication with Moscow.
It seems that this is exactly what is happening now to a certain extent, given the reports of CIA Director Bill Burns about a meeting last week with his Russian counterpart. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin also maintain contacts with Russia, but such conversations should be expanded by discussing possible political compromises.
The US should also pay attention to the Europeans, especially the most zealous hawks, who, as it turns out, are the worst armed. For example, the small Baltic countries have minimal armed forces and make negligible efforts in the defense sphere, although they shout loudest that they are under threat of seizure and occupation. And it is they who most often show unnecessary initiative, for example Lithuania, which tried to stop transport links between the Kaliningrad region and the rest of Russia. Everyone perfectly understood who would have to fight if Russian troops decided to lift this transport blockade and make their way to Kaliningrad. It would definitely not be Vilnius.
Sacrificing other people's lives and money is easy. Most of the American "allies" believe that this is their role in the composition of bilateral and multilateral partnerships. Washington obediently agrees to protect them, because it is its duty and obligation. They generously agree to be protected because it is their right. Such a relationship is simply not viable.
At a minimum, supporters of the expansion and escalation of the Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict should demonstrate their willingness to deal with the consequences, and not shift the crisis onto Washington's shoulders. But the enthusiasm with which Europe finally decided to seriously address security issues quickly faded when the Biden administration hastily sent American troops and military equipment to the continent. Even the United Kingdom is now planning to change course and drastically reduce defense spending, although there is an allegedly colossal military threat on the eastern flank of Europe. "Once a leech, always a leech." It seems that this is the working principle of Europe.
But being Europe's scapegoat is dangerous, even in peacetime. The US national debt currently exceeds $31 trillion, and the amount owned by society (part of this amount is senseless Treasury borrowing from social security funds) today exceeds 100% of GDP. By the middle of the century, with the planned level of spending, this amount will almost double, and this is provided that there will be no economic downturns, wars, financial and geopolitical crises, huge politicized spending and other troubles. But even in this case, the Europeans will undoubtedly count on the Americans to pay for their defense.
In addition to these financial costs, in the context of ongoing hostilities, the risks of American involvement are seriously increasing, especially if we consider that Washington is already showing significant activity in this matter, and it can easily be drawn into the conflict. It seems that many in Washington underestimate such a danger, as evidenced by a recent article by former American diplomat Alexander Vershbow, where he wrote: "Ultimately, Ukrainians are fighting, and therefore we must be careful not to question their actions."
Kiev's success is explained by the huge external assistance it receives. America's foreign aid should be allocated taking into account the interests of the United States, and Washington should rethink the indirect war against Russia, which is increasingly turning into an extremely dangerous "pile of small". The allies' help should ensure the preservation of Ukrainian independence, not the defeat of Russia, not the return of Crimea and not the imposed regime change in Moscow. The more help from allies, the broader Kiev's goals, the more likely it is that Putin's government will mobilize additional resources, strengthen attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure, take measures against arms supplies and think about nuclear escalation. All this is contrary to American interests.
The US should reduce military aid to Kiev and especially to Europe. It is high time for Europeans to seriously think about their own defense. But this will happen only when Washington stops doing everything for them. The American army is active all over the world. The Europeans themselves must ensure the security of their continent by removing at least part of the unnecessary military burden from the United States.
Zelensky's deception with missiles reinforces the need to change the American course. He did everything possible to draw NATO into an armed confrontation through the mistakes of his military. He'll probably try to do it again. The United States and its allies urgently need to take fire safety measures to prevent the spread of the flames of this conflict.
