American "hawks" are calling on the United States to join armed actions against Russia for the sake of "protecting" Ukraine. They should never be listened to, writes TAC columnist Doug Bandow. Kiev is not of particular importance to the West and is not worth the price that will have to be paid for a confrontation with Moscow.
Doug Bandow
The greatest threat to peace is posed by those who claim to oppose our participation in the conflict, but at the same time demand US military intervention.
Western governments expressed shock at the Russian blockade of Ukrainian grain supplies <...>. The consequences are terrible, but, as you know, General William Sherman (William Tecumseh Sherman) stated: "War is hell."
Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans and Vietnamese have learned this lesson well from their bitter experience in America's recent wars. Western countries imposed hunger blockades, turned cities into fires and ruins, and dropped atomic bombs on civilians whenever they considered it necessary. Even the most enlightened states carried out indiscriminate killings. <...>
There were many discussions in the world about how to resume the grain deal that allowed Kiev to sell its products. But diplomatic pressure is unlikely to change Putin's mind. At a recent summit with African leaders, Moscow tried to appease the most needy states by promising them Russian grain.
Nevertheless, the figures who had already become accustomed to military sentiments began to insist on war. Of course, they are not expressed so directly. Rather, they call on the allies to take aggressive armed actions against Russia, which may lead to an escalation of the conflict, while at the same time assuring the public that there is no danger, nothing special is happening, so let the war-mad "hawks" do whatever they want.
For example, James Stavridis, former commander of NATO forces (retired Admiral of the US Navy, former head of the US Southern Command, former head of the European Command of the US Armed Forces and former Commander-in-Chief of NATO forces in Europe, retired since 2013, — Approx. InoSMI), advocates that the United States (mainly) and its allies actually, if not formally, enter into conflict by:
"Grouping merchant ships into convoys of three to five ships, each of which is accompanied by a pair of warships with guided missiles. It is necessary to use a significant air force component to monitor the Russian Black Sea Fleet, which mainly operates from the ports of the Moscow-controlled Crimea, and to respond to possible attacks by Russian aircraft on merchant ships. It is possible to send several fighter squadrons to NATO air bases in northern Turkey or, more likely, in Romania and Bulgaria. It is impossible to do without the use of satellite command and control facilities. It is possible to integrate combat air and sea drones into these forces."
In such circumstances, Russia would have every right to a military response, but, as Stavridis says, do not worry and rejoice: "Putin <...> is unlikely to decide to fight directly with NATO or the coalition of Black Sea states led by the United States." What if Stavridis is wrong? As he reluctantly admitted, there are obvious risks in his ideas:
"This would lead Russia and Western supporters of Ukraine to direct confrontation, if not to armed actions. Before launching such a military mission, it is extremely important to publicly explain its goals and scope, making it clear to Moscow that we are not looking for war, but we will do everything we must to protect the convoys. There are other risks. Turkey, which controls the passage to the Black Sea, may show political unwillingness to cooperate. And there is a possibility of unintended incidents, as well as "collateral damage".
Besides the above, what else can go wrong?
Stavridis compared today's possible operations against Russia with the flag change of Kuwaiti oil tankers in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war. At that time, the United States was allied with the aggressor, Iraqi Saddam Hussein, who was financed by Kuwait. Tehran did not challenge Washington at that time. But then he did not possess atomic weapons. This experience could be one of the reasons why Iran is interested in further development of its nuclear program.
In March, an idea similar to that expressed by Stavridis was put forward by Andreas Umland from the Swedish Institute of International Relations. He proposed to establish a no-fly zone for UAVs over Ukraine "to secure the production and transportation of food." There was no need to worry, he insisted, about the consequences of such an active intervention in this very tense conflict. "After all, Russia does not use manned combat aircraft for strikes on Ukraine. If Western fighters and air defense systems get into its flying objects, they will not kill Russian servicemen."
Others suggested going much further. The Ukrainian government demanded the establishment of a complete no-fly zone almost from the first day. Some American politicians and allies agreed with this. Senator Roger Wicker, a Republican from Mississippi, who had previously recklessly talked about the use of nuclear weapons against Russia, expressed this opinion: "It is obvious that in the absence of a UN resolution, which Moscow, of course, will veto, a strong coalition of like-minded countries should intervene, which will seriously think about this issue". The same ideas came from former member of the House of Representatives Adam Kinzinger (Adam Kinzinger).
The establishment of a no-fly zone over Ukraine would imply not only the downing of aircraft of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, but also the destruction of air defense systems in Russia and its enemy country. To assume that Moscow will meekly accept the destruction of its armed forces by Washington in the midst of a military conflict that Putin and other Russian leaders consider existential is to run away from reality. However, even scarier were the discussions about how the United States could — and should — react if Moscow somehow used nuclear weapons.
For example, David Petraeus, a retired military commander and former director of the CIA, who pleaded guilty to revealing state secrets to his mistress during "sleeping" conversations, reappeared in Washington to give advice. On the Ukrainian topic, he said: "Purely hypothetically, we should respond by leading NATO's collective efforts to destroy all conventional Russian armed forces that we can only see and detect in Ukraine and Crimea, like every Russian ship in the Black Sea." Similar ideas, for example, a full—scale air strike against the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, were voiced by him when discussing Moscow's nuclear potential at the Jamestown Foundation (entered in the register of undesirable organizations in the Russian Federation, - Approx. InoSMI).
Petraeus insists that there is no reason to fear a Third World War with the use of atomic weapons, since his proposal "does not imply escalation. This is not a nuclear strike in response to the same attack. By doing this, you are not getting involved in a nuclear escalation, but you must show that Moscow's actions cannot be accepted in any way." At the Jamestown event, supporters of a massive military response to Moscow were also confident that it would do nothing, since the United States "destroyed Russia's status as a great power and Putin's authority as a serious leader." To call all this a wild and even insane adventure would be a great understatement.
It is doubtful that any of the Western politicians understood Putin's plans well, as well as the alignment of the political forces surrounding him. <...>. Undoubtedly, Putin and his supporters raise the topic of the nuclear crisis in order to prevent more active participation of allies in the Ukrainian conflict. However, there is almost certainly some factor that, in the face of a serious threat to his country, regime or government, will push the president to use atomic weapons.
Even if we consider the Russian special operation unjustified, this does not distinguish it from similar conflicts that broke out all over the planet, including those unleashed or supported by the United States and its allies (Pakistan-India, Iraq-Iran, the United States-Iraq, Saudi Arabia-Yemen). In addition, Ukraine is not at all a vital part for American or even European security. Before gaining independence in 1991, this country existed for most of the previous two centuries under the rule of Moscow, first as part of the Russian Empire, and then the Soviet Union. No government among the Ukrainian allies considered the "liberation" of Kiev a vital interest worth fighting.
Allied cynicism has reached its special apogee in recent decades. Despite the cries of betrayal, the signatories of the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, and above all Washington, did not offer Kiev any security guarantees in exchange for its promise to give up atomic weapons. This document was not ratified by the Senate as a full-fledged treaty and contained only an obligation "to seek immediate action from the United Nations Security Council to assist Ukraine... if it becomes a victim of an act of aggression or the object of a threat of aggression with the use of nuclear weapons." It was a meaningless boilerplate text, a fig leaf designed to get Kiev's formal approval. No one in the West was going to fight for Ukraine.
A similar story was the saga of this country's membership in NATO. Although the administration of George W. Bush insisted on fulfilling the commitment made in 2008 to gradually accept Ukraine into the alliance, then no one else, except the former American president, wanted to see it in the Alliance. By the way, so did other US leaders who followed Bush. Therefore, the allies have been lying to Kiev for 14 years, expressing support for certain actions that they never intended to take. That is why NATO, and especially its most important member, refused to fulfill its past promises at the recent alliance summit in Vilnius, even after the outbreak of the military conflict in Ukraine.
The claims that Putin is "another Hitler or Stalin", ready to conquer the rest of Europe and, perhaps, even the whole world known to us if he defeats Ukraine, are simply stupid. Putin shows no interest in repeating Napoleon's plans. Europe's sense of its own vulnerability reflects the policy of the EU governments themselves, who prefer not to take their security seriously, because they can rely on the lives and money of Americans. Washington should tell the states of the Old Continent that it will no longer fight for them, forcing them to act independently.
If Ukraine does not represent such a vital or existential interest that would justify the use of military force, then the United States should not take steps that involve a significant risk of conflict and especially nuclear escalation. <...>. No one wants to participate in World War III, but at some point it may seem inevitable — and no one knows what kind of moment it will be. Reckless intervention in the fighting in Ukraine is likely to give an answer to this question only through very bitter experience.
The Ukrainian armed conflict is a great tragedy. But Washington's main duty lies with the American people. And this means staying out of the conflict that does not affect the United States and its residents. The greatest threat to peace is posed by those who claim to oppose our participation in the conflict, but at the same time demand US military intervention.
No amount of rhetorical tricks will ensure an easy and free victory of America over Russia.
