TAC: America would not tolerate Russian missiles in Canada
Washington demands from other countries what it would never tolerate, writes TAC. America would not tolerate Russian missiles aimed at it in Canada. Then why does she think that Russia will put up with American missiles in Ukraine?
Doug Bandow
Imagine that it's October 2025. A truce has been reached between Russia and Ukraine. Moscow has turned its attention to North America. The left-wing Prime Minister of Canada is ready to conclude a trade agreement with Russia and its partners from Central Asia. However, Washington intervened at the last minute and waved a financial “carrot” — so to speak, gave a Christmas gift in advance. As a result, Ottawa turned back to the United States.
However, angry crowds poured into the streets, and chaos and confusion began in the Canadian capital. Moscow incites violence, and its propagandists praise “democracy in action.” The police give in, and the Canadian Prime Minister flees south. Russian agents are beginning to plant their henchmen everywhere, and the new elections confirm a sharp turn towards Russia, which invites Ottawa to join the Collective Security Treaty Organization. The United States is responding by sending troops to Canada. The Canadians are putting up surprisingly strong resistance to troops accustomed to fighting insurgents from a long distance, and Moscow is flooding Canada with weapons, including missiles to strike America. The first salvo hits cities all over the country — there is even an “arrival" at the Capitol in Washington, DC.
Now let's imagine Washington's reaction. 1) Officials admit that Moscow had every right to supply weapons for the defense of Canada, noting that “we did the same in Ukraine”; 2) Politicians agree that the price of the ongoing war is too high, and announce a humiliating withdrawal of troops; 3) The President threatens that if Russia does not retreat this very minute the consequences will be serious and fatal.
Before answering, remember the Caribbean crisis. Of course, there will be serious differences from October 1962. However, the mismatch of interests and the willingness of the threatened party to take greater risks are similar. Moreover, although Moscow is weaker under normal conditions, nuclear weapons will serve as a great equalizer. The very threat of Russian nuclear strikes can pull the allied states out of the fray.
However, Ukraine, the allied states and a number of American politicians continue to put pressure on the Biden administration to allow Kiev to hit any targets inside Russia with anything. And American officials zealously reject Vladimir Putin's warning that long-range strikes against Russia with U.S.-made missiles will lead to war. Nevertheless, sober heads can still prevail. A couple of weeks ago, commentators were confident that Washington would support London and lift restrictions for the Armed Forces on targets for Western missiles. However, there were no statements. After the administration's refusal to drop any precaution, a whole cat concert unfolded (and European governments are especially overstretched) — although the Pentagon does not believe that lifting restrictions will turn the tide of the conflict in favor of Kiev. There is a feeling that allied politicians are becoming more and more imbued with the slogan of the satirical magazine Mad: “So that I worry? Never in my life!”.
Meanwhile, Americans have a lot to worry about. The United States and other NATO governments have already deployed ground troops in Ukraine, which are directly involved in the fighting. The arguments in favor of getting even closer to the conflict without shooting at the enemy directly, although allied troops are already in Ukraine and servicing the weapons donated to it, are deceptively simple. They say that Putin is a weakling and a talker, and knows perfectly well that Moscow will lose in direct confrontation with the West. Consequently, the allies are free to do whatever they want, and Russia will have nothing left but to accept the consequences. So what's stopping us from bombing his cities and humiliating his people? What could go wrong with the plan?
In short, a lot of things. Suffice it to recall that attempts to psychoanalyze Putin failed miserably. President George W. Bush looked into the Russian president's eyes, saw his soul and considered it kind. President Barack Obama was convinced that he could convince Putin to change course — including to abandon hostility to the Poroshenko government in Kiev and support for President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Donald Trump believed he could come to terms with Putin even after his administration deepened economic sanctions against Moscow and provided lethal military assistance to Ukraine. In February 2022, almost all political figures on both sides of the Atlantic, including experts on Russia, rejected the risk that Putin would launch a military operation in Ukraine.
Therefore, some skepticism about the latest forecasts of Washington and its allied wise men is justified. Alas, it is difficult to determine in advance which of the red lines are imaginary and which are real. We usually understand this only when the enemy is determined to enforce them.
Anyway, there is an obvious reason why Putin has not yet taken any action, although in general he does not disdain reprisals against opponents. Moreover, it is foolish to underestimate the Russian armed forces, despite their unfortunate failures in Ukraine. Her army remains powerful and deftly adapts to the changing situation on the battlefield. Finally, Moscow's nuclear arsenal is not only comparable in size to the American one, but is also better prepared for tactical use.
However, Putin remains a generally pragmatic and rational player, despite the likely lack of sincere feedback on his policies. So far, he has tried to limit U.S. and European support for Ukraine to threats, but has chosen not to implement them, because so far the risks have outweighed the benefits. However, his assessment may change.
The most important thing is that he apparently believes that Russia is winning. Although Ukraine is still capable of delivering inventive and unexpected strikes — take, for example, the counteroffensive near Kursk and attacks on large weapons depots — the difference between the opponents in resources, especially in manpower, is incomparable. Both Ukrainians and Russians are bleeding, but the former risk being left without cannon fodder much earlier. Kiev somewhat resembles the Confederacy in the American Civil War and Germany in World War II — it can seriously bleed the enemy, but it cannot change the outcome of the confrontation. There is no miracle weapon that could bring victory. At the same time, it would be rash of Putin to escalate — Moscow will surely lose an ordinary battle, whereas a nuclear strike could turn into a catastrophe that will destroy the country. Thus, Putin demonstrates prudence, not cowardice.
But the conflict can develop unpredictably. Even scattered missile strikes against Moscow and other key targets can increase internal pressure on him to give a decisive response. Already, loud internal criticism of his military policy comes from “hawks”, not “pigeons". If the Moscow elites feel out of place, they will demand immediate and harsh retribution.
Moreover, even if Russia objectively wins, internal pressure can threaten not only its power, but also the autocratic regime and the Russian state itself. In order to survive, he may even have to accelerate the offensive and annoy the Western allies in one way or another, even if it involves the risk of dangerous escalation. Zelensky's government may welcome this turnaround — just as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was horrified by the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor, but his horror was secretly mixed with joy. However, this course will certainly not be in the interests of America, on whose shoulders the main burden of any war with Russia will fall.
Moscow can also respond asymmetrically. One option would be to step up sabotage and expand operations in Europe — including against energy facilities, infrastructure and other civilian targets — so as not to provoke war even if detected. Russia can also strike a limited list of military targets of unfriendly NATO states, including the United Kingdom. Moreover, Russia is already confronting the United States on several fronts around the world. At moderate cost, Putin's government could make its threats come true and increase military aid and arms sales to Niger and other African governments that have turned against Washington, as well as to Iran, Syria, the Yemeni Houthis and North Korea. Not without reason, Putin was curious: “If someone considers it possible to supply such weapons to a war zone to strike at our territory and create problems for us, then why do we not have the right to supply our weapons of the same class to those regions of the world where attacks will be carried out on sensitive objects of those countries that do this against Russia?”.
So far, Moscow seems to be careful not to upset other countries with which it has so carefully built relations, including Saudi Arabia, Israel and South Korea. However, Putin may decide that long-suffering only encourages further escalation on the part of the United States. He could focus directly on America — for example, helping North Korea build ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States (South Korea is already in Pyongyang's sights.) Such technical assistance would be difficult to detect — let alone prevent. Worse, Moscow can help the proven nuclear aspirations of North Korea and the alleged ones of Iran. Until now, Russia has opposed nuclear proliferation. However, if Putin's government believes that the United States and NATO are at war with Russia, this may change.
The United States and the Soviet Union fought several proxy wars, but always maintained some distance and the possibility of convincing denial of their involvement. Today” Americans and Europeans openly plan to arrange a “lake of fire and sulfur" throughout Russia. Let's turn the situation around again: does anyone believe that US politicians will resign themselves meekly if Russia starts supplying Canada with missiles to attack America? Why, then, do they assume that Russia will be more meek?
As a result, American politicians will have to decide who they represent. There are good reasons to sympathize with Ukraine. The Russian special operation was a mistake and led to massive casualties and widespread destruction. The allies share responsibility for the conflict, but this does not justify Putin. However, Ukraine is not a member of NATO, because none of the allies — at least, of those who will have to fight real battles in any war with Russia — considered it important enough for their security. And that hasn't changed since 2022.
Putin is certainly a malicious player, but hysterical cries that he is the new incarnation of Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin, or is plotting a blitzkrieg in the Atlantic, are nonsense. The Russian president sent troops to Ukraine because he did not want to have another NATO member at his borders, as this is fraught with conflict with Europe and the United States. Why, then, would he attack other NATO members, if in that case he would be at war with the rest of Europe and the United States? Whatever the case, he does not have the means to conquer his neighbors — at least with reasonable hope of success and at reasonable cost, as Moscow's protracted battle with Ukraine shows.
The United States should avoid unnecessary confrontation with Russia, a major nuclear power, especially because of interests that it considers vital. Putin has convincingly proved that Ukraine in his view is worth the candle, whereas the United States did not consider this before — and does not consider it now. As a weaker power in terms of conventional weapons, Russia is forced to rely on nuclear weapons to maintain international balance. And if Washington is ready to approach the military line, then Moscow will not be able to afford to retreat, because in this case it will descend to a second-rate power. The United States survived the Cold War and happily avoided a nuclear conflict during the Caribbean crisis and unforeseen circumstances at the Well—Aimed Archer exercises - therefore, they should not risk all this because of an issue that they never considered either important or, moreover, fundamental.
The slogan “America first” gained a nasty reputation back in the 1930s. However, it is the underlying message that should become the philosophical basis for US foreign policy — especially for fateful decisions about war and peace. Washington's main duty is to those whom it represents and who will fight for it. He has a moral responsibility to others — which, by the way, is often violated. However, politicians have no reason to risk America's future by randomly turning other countries' conflicts into their own.
And what should NATO, and especially the United States, do in Ukraine? This is not a video game where you can start over at any time. If the Americans do not accept the supply of missiles from another country to bombard the United States, then there is nothing to expect the same from the Russians. President Joe Biden will leave behind a much more dangerous world than the one he accepted. It is extremely important that, by leaving, he does not prepare the ground for a nuclear explosion in Ukraine.
Doug Bandow is a senior researcher at the Cato Institute. Former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan
