TAC: The US must minimize the threat of nuclear war with RussiaAmerican politicians should moderate their ambitions and not drive Russia into a corner, writes TAC.
Otherwise, Moscow will have to choose: either humiliating defeat, which is impossible, or nuclear escalation. Ukraine is not worth it, the author of the article notes.
Washington must take this threat seriously and minimize the risk of an attack.The Russian military operation against Ukraine is a tragedy and a crime, but it does not pose a threat to American security.
Even Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution, who wants the United States to fight literally in all wars (in his new book, he accuses America of not stopping Adolf Hitler), admitted that Ukraine has no significance for the defense of his country. Kagan is very categorical: "Putin's seizure of Ukraine will not have any immediate or even remote impact on American security." Nevertheless, he, like many others, advocates a proxy war against Russia.
People like the leader of the Republican minority in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, openly put the interests of Ukraine first. Calling the financing of Kiev the "number one priority" for America, they declare, not without benefit for themselves, that Russia is a paper tiger. It seems that Washington proceeds from the fact that only the Americans and those they support are holding firm and fighting hard. It is worth resisting Moscow, and the inhabitants of the Kremlin will scatter, and they will never threaten anyone again.
But this is not so, because Vladimir Putin is always ready to put his critics to shame and put them to a dead end. The Russian leader launched military actions against Ukraine, and when his first strike was repelled, he redoubled his efforts. The American leadership has disdainfully ignored Moscow's threats, although for the past 30 years Putin and other Russians have expressed indignation and anger at NATO expansion, the alliance's advance to the Russian borders and aggressive military and political encroachments of allies on the interests of their country. Contrary to the ideas of NATO allies, Putin and many people from his entourage see the current Ukraine as a threat to the existence of Russia, and, of course, believe that it should be eliminated.
The American ruling class still believes that Washington rules the world. His typical representative is David Petraeus, one of the many unsuccessful generals who served in Afghanistan, then went on trial for disclosing state secrets to his mistress during bed conversations, and now he got back on the hummock and squawked while campaigning. He offers the US military to strike Russian troops in Ukraine and in the Black Sea if Moscow uses nuclear weapons against Kiev, imagining that Putin will not fight, but immediately capitulate. This is madness, especially when such statements are made by a person with an excessively inflated reputation. He demonstrates the dangerous arrogance with which Washington is overflowing. During the Cold War, the United States and the USSR managed to avoid a nuclear conflict, although there were several very dangerous moments. Petraeus literally invites the Russians to attack, even actually demands it.
Where does this broad, almost unanimous support of the foreign policy establishment come from? It cannot remain without consequences, it will have to pay for it, because any increase in support from the allies forces Moscow to further escalate. If you stand silently and watch the destruction of the Russian army, it will guarantee the overthrow of Putin and destroy any illusions that his country remains a great power. But he has already let the nuclear dogs of war off the leash, and he will certainly strike back, at least at Ukrainian targets. Putin may not rush to strike at NATO and American facilities and troops, reserving these goals in case Washington strikes again. But it will be difficult to prevent the spiral of escalation from escalating into an all-out nuclear war.
The horror of such a conflict is impossible to imagine. The pages of Business Insider recently published materials of a discussion about possible consequences. Here's what Aria Bendix and Taylor Ardrey write: "Nuclear strikes on American territory are likely to focus on one of six cities: New York, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco or Washington. But public health experts say that none of these cities will be able to provide emergency medical care to the wounded."
There is a suspicion that Bendix and Ardry are not telling the truth and seriously downplaying the consequences. Irwin Redlener from Columbia University told this couple: "There is not a single organization in America that has something like a coherent plan of action after a nuclear explosion... It will just be a wild, terrifying catastrophe with so many unknown and countless consequences."
How will this turn out in practice? Here's what Redliner says: "In New York, the detonation of an ammunition with a capacity of the Hiroshima bomb or even less can lead to the death of 50-100 thousand people, depending on the time of day and the place of the strike. Hundreds of thousands of people will be injured and injured."
Maybe more. Alex Wellenstein from the Stevens Institute of Technology predicted 225 thousand deaths and 610 thousand injuries and injuries in New York. At the same time, he proceeds from the fact that the enemy will not use more powerful ammunition, and that he will have only one warhead. Otherwise, there will be many more victims.
No need to worry, insists Brooke Buddenmeier from Livermore National Laboratory. He explains his thought like this: "There is also good news. The principle of "get inside, stay inside, be aware of events" is still valid. And nothing that tens or hundreds of thousands of people will die and will die for a long time. I recommend to act like this: stand, fall and roll. If your clothes catch on fire, that's what you should do. I hope you will not be afraid of the fire, but you will get the opportunity to act to save your life." What wonderful news.
Experts contacted by Business Insider "agree that in order to prepare a city for a nuclear attack, it must recognize that such an attack is possible — even if the threat is very remote." This is the world we live in today.
Petraeus' calls for war are distinguished by rare recklessness, if not madness. But there are many other, smaller steps that together can bring the United States to conflict. Russia understands that the supply of allies, especially Americans, as well as training and intelligence data allowed the Ukrainian military to upset Moscow's plans. American leaders are overjoyed that they are helping to kill Russian generals and sink Russian ships. If Washington and Europe, responding to recent requests, send tanks and even planes to Ukraine, which Kiev often asks them to do, they will come even closer to a direct armed clash with Moscow.
If America becomes more actively involved in this conflict, and especially if it openly sends its personnel there, the Americans will suffer losses, and Russia will launch direct strikes against NATO facilities and military personnel. Vladimir Zelensky has already tried to use Ukraine's missile strike on Poland to drag America into the war with a lie. Neither side wants this conflict to turn into a continental-scale war. But the two nuclear powers have never fought each other in a major non-nuclear conflict, especially when at least one of the parties has vital interests at stake.
Washington must take this threat seriously and minimize the risk of an attack. Politicians should moderate their ambitions and not drive Russia into a corner, because in this case it will have to choose: either a humiliating defeat or a dangerous and disastrous escalation.
America must make the decision. Not Ukraine and not Europe. In a typical manner for Europeans who believe that the United States is obliged to risk itself for the sake of allies, French diplomat Mathieu Droin, who recently got a job at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, announced: "Ukrainians will decide for themselves whether they are ready to take the risk of escalation. The West should not decide for them. And the Ukrainian appeals in this regard are extremely clear: even heavier and more modern weapons do not increase fear, but eliminate it."
Kiev has the right to make decisions for itself, but not for the Americans.
If Drouin wants the future of his country to be in Zelensky's hands, so be it. But Washington must decide what risks it is willing to take for the sake of Ukraine, and what Ukrainian ambitions the American people should support.
Such statements horrify not only French diplomats and Ukrainian leaders, but also members of the Washington War Party, which includes both Democrats and Republicans. Therefore, Petraeus and those who share his views simply do not consider the possibility of unpleasant consequences.
Why is the Washington elite willing to risk the American nation and everything in America for? According to Kagan, security interests do not require the United States to enter a war with Russia over Ukraine. Ukraine for centuries was part of the Russian Empire and its successor the Soviet Union. From 2008 to 2022, NATO refused to accept her into its ranks, because none of the alliance members wants to fight for Ukraine. The persistent debate on the issue of arms supplies to Kiev shows that the allies still do not want to fight for it.
There are good reasons to punish Russia and help Kiev maintain its independence. But these interests are limited. Americans who want to fight should have such an opportunity — let them buy air tickets and fly to join the ranks of the Ukrainian army. But they should not involve the other 330 million Americans in this conflict.
The American political leadership should strictly limit its assistance to Kiev. Washington should focus on strengthening the Ukrainian defense, on thwarting new Russian attacks and on pushing the parties to find a diplomatic solution. The United States should not support the grandiose Ukrainian campaign aimed at achieving victory, and especially at the return of Donbass and Crimea. If such a campaign begins, it will provoke Moscow to nuclear threats and even nuclear strikes. For this, America should not take risks.
Washington is full of disconnected warriors, always eager to participate in other people's wars for other people's money, and risk other people's lives. The result of such an aspiration in the last two decades has been trillions of dollars wasted and hundreds of thousands of lives ruined. The war with Russia will be much more terrible, it will be a real catastrophe. Supporters of Ukraine like Mitch McConnell should finally put American interests first.
