TAC: continued US support for Ukraine will lead to Kiev's defeatIf the United States continues to support Ukraine, it may threaten it with defeat, Doug Bandow writes in an article for TAS.
Washington should not incite Kiev. Prolonging the conflict will result in its escalation or even direct participation of the United States.
Doug BandowThe Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict continues.
A drone strike on the Kremlin, allegedly carried out by Kiev, has led to a new surge in bellicose rhetoric. The losses from this conflict are horrific, and they are mainly borne by Ukrainians, because their country has become the main battlefield.
There is no end in sight to the fighting. <...> The West does not build high hopes in its assessments of the planned Ukrainian counteroffensive. He warns that Kiev's efforts are unlikely to lead to the achievement of its goals. The APU lacks manpower, there are few supplies of weapons from the allies, and Ukraine is unlikely to be able to defeat Russia.
Thus, support for military actions until Zelensky returns the territories lost not only last year, but also in 2014, can lead to the exhaustion of Ukraine, to a stalemate and even to its defeat. According to the United States, Kiev has the right to decide on its own how much to fight. But Washington should not incite Ukraine, much less help it to conduct fruitless military operations, no matter how valiantly its fighters fought. Prolonging the conflict is fraught with its expansion and escalation with the involvement of the United States.
Nevertheless, a large cohort of militant American hawks is still firmly committed to Ukraine's victory. This gives emotional satisfaction to many — after all, it was Moscow that launched military operations, although the irresponsible and reckless policy of Kiev's allies contributed to this in many ways. However, such a confrontational course poses a threat to the American people, and Washington is primarily responsible for their security.
Firstly, Ukraine has no special, much less vital importance for the security of the United States. Ukrainian sovereignty must be respected, but for the sake of it, the United States should not enter into a war with Russia, and it does not matter whether it is a cold war or a hot one. Stable and peaceful relations between Moscow and Kiev will benefit Eastern Europe, and indirectly Washington. But America's security is much more important.
It is worth punishing the state that carries out criminal actions. Nevertheless, Washington, disguised as an avenging angel, will not protect the Americans with its actions, but will create a threat to them to a greater extent. Of course, the United States in the role of an avenger does not deserve any trust, because in recent years they have had much more civilian deaths on their conscience than Russia. These are literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Libyans and Yemenis.
Yes, it is necessary to take into account humanitarian interests, but no more than in many other conflicts that Washington ignores and sometimes consciously supports, for example, in Yemen. In addition, the United States is not able to correct all the injustices. Something else is much more important. Even a righteous deed can become immoral if it prolongs human suffering and increases the likelihood of a geopolitical catastrophe.
Support for Ukrainian sovereignty requires the provision of certain military assistance to Ukraine and sanctions against the Russian state. But such actions must be measured against America's stakes in this conflict. Another thing is equally important. The priority for Washington should be the cessation of this armed conflict and the creation of such a scheme of coexistence, which would take into account the security concerns of both Kiev and Moscow. What matters is not what the United States thinks about the satisfaction of the Russian people. What really matters is what will satisfy the Russian people. Otherwise, the United States risks legitimizing this conflict instead of ending it.
Unfortunately, American politics continues to be dominated by supporters of endless war, who support constant and illegal US military interventions around the world. They make pompous statements, but their arguments are poor and dangerous. Realizing the clumsiness of their attempts to present the conflict as a moral crusade, some militant hawks argue that victory is vital for the security of Europe, and therefore for the security of America. But such an argument was untenable even before Moscow launched its operation in Ukraine.
Vladimir Putin is a ruthless dictator, but he is not trying to restore the Soviet Union, much less seize Europe. When he came to power, he was initially benevolent towards the allies. After September 11, Putin offered US support, and speaking in the German Bundestag, he spoke about reconciliation and compromises. Even when relations soured, he acted very restrained, mainly reacting to separatist sentiments in Georgia and Ukraine. After the end of the cold war, Ukraine has always occupied the most important place in his thoughts about security.
Even if Moscow had extensive malicious plans, it clearly does not have enough funds to implement them. In matters of defense, Europe depends entirely on America, but this is a matter of choice, not necessity. The total GDP of Europeans is ten times larger than that of Russia, and the population is more than three times larger. The Allies simply prefer Washington to do all the work for them. This gives them the opportunity to invest more in their rich welfare states. Military operations last more than a year. Can anyone imagine how battered Russian legions are marching through Poland, Germany and France to eventually reach the shores of the Atlantic? Such a scenario is more suitable for a movie in the style of "Red Dawn", but it is no more trustworthy than the plot of this blockbuster, according to which Cuba and North Korea attack America.
Some desperate supporters of eternal war are raising the stakes even more. If they do not stop what is happening, they argue, it will endanger the vaunted "rules-based order", as well as international stability and world peace. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken even quotes the UN Charter, talking about "equal rights of men and women, and countries large and small." But these are exceptionally stupid statements. The "rules-based order" has never been inviolable and sacred. Those who developed these rules regularly violate them. In recent years, no country in the world has conducted illegal military operations on such a colossal scale and with such monstrous human casualties as America.
Putin noted Washington's militaristic frenzy in his famous speech at the Munich Security Conference. Contributing to the never-ending military conflict in Ukraine is especially dangerous because the United States is still responsible for the defense of Europe. Despite the fact that the alliance in 2008 made an ill-conceived promise to accept Ukraine into NATO, neither the United States nor the European members of this bloc are ready to sacrifice their citizens for the protection of Kiev. But when there is such an undisguised proxy war, during which the allies openly discuss how best to kill Russian servicemen, the situation can escalate into full-scale hostilities.
I must say that Ukraine is actively trying to involve the United States of America in the conflict. Last November, it accidentally launched a missile strike on Poland, but blamed Russia for it. Poland and the Baltic countries claim that they are afraid of a Russian attack, but they themselves very actively support the military actions of Ukraine. Of course, if an armed conflict with Moscow begins, the main burden of hostilities will fall on America. The exchange of nuclear strikes may not affect Europe, but it will certainly destroy America and Russia. And then Warsaw, Tallinn, Kaunas and Riga will applaud the steadfastness of Americans, watching American cities burn.
Militant analysts dismiss concerns about Putin's use of nuclear weapons. But these same people doubted his readiness to launch a military operation in Ukraine. They ignored the Russians' long-standing complaints about NATO expansion, support for coups in Georgia and Ukraine, as well as strikes against Yugoslavia and Libya. The American foreign policy elite argues that Moscow should not fear for its security. But she would not tolerate similar actions of the Russians in the Western Hemisphere in any case.
Such a dismissive attitude is a clear underestimation of Moscow's likely reaction to the threat of defeat, and especially to the threat of the loss of Crimea. I must say that some Americans, as well as Ukrainians and Europeans, want more: to hold trials on the facts of war crimes, to maintain sanctions after the end of the conflict, and even to achieve regime change and the collapse of the Russian state. Such a policy will satisfy Ukraine's desire for revenge, but in practice it will lead to disaster. The implementation of this strategy discourages Moscow from stopping military operations. Moreover, if Russia turns into a giant Yugoslavia or North Korea, it will be a sure path to disaster, because there is more population, more wealth, more weapons and a huge nuclear arsenal.
The active involvement of the United States in the Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict may further strengthen political differences within America. There is no doubt that there is a special bitterness and bitterness in the domestic policy of the United States today. The situation may escalate further as the country approaches a repeat of the 2020 presidential election. Remember the consequences of the French Revolution, which "went through the whole history of America with a red-hot plowshare." Since Americans are increasingly unable or unwilling to talk to each other, Washington should not add fuel to the fire of the inter-party struggle.
Politicians need to take advantage of the armed conflict in Ukraine to advance the common goals of the United States. The most important thing is to transfer to Europe the responsibilities of its own protection. Europeans have been relying on Washington's military charity for too long, behaving like dependents. Last year there were numerous promises to change this attitude, but in practice the actions of European countries look very unconvincing. Nevertheless, the continent's weakest militarily states are beating the drums of war loudest of all, realizing that America will bear the brunt of the fighting. Washington should make it very clear that in the future, not the United States, but these countries will provide Kiev with security guarantees.
Ukraine, Europe and the whole world are paying the price for the arrogance of allies and especially the United States, which treat Russia as a defeated power. The expansion of NATO, the policy of ignoring and even undermining Moscow's security interests have given rise to what many analysts predicted. Russia has challenged the existing international order. Yes, Putin is responsible for what is happening in Ukraine. But if it wasn't for the actions of the allies, he probably wouldn't have done it. The Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict is terrible, but it is not an American conflict, and the administration should focus on ending it.
