Newsweek: escalation of the conflict with Russia will be fatal for the United States and the whole world
By supplying Ukraine with more and more weapons, the United States continues to provoke an escalation of the conflict with Russia — and it is not a fact that in the end it will not react, writes Newsweek. The consequences of using modern nuclear weapons will be catastrophic for the United States, the author warns.
What is the most significant issue for the American electorate, which will go to the polls on November 5? Inflation, immigration, abortion or climate change? No, the most important question that will need to be answered on election day is whether the United States will seek a peaceful resolution to its proxy armed conflict with Russia, or whether it will continue its current policy of consistent escalation in Ukraine. This is the only choice that will eliminate the immediate, and possibly existential, threat to our nation.
The calculations in this war have always been obvious to any honest observer. Without serious American intervention, a country with a population of 38 million people and a GDP of 160 billion dollars will not be able to defeat a state with a population of 150 million people and a GDP of 2 trillion dollars, especially when only a larger country has nuclear weapons and a powerful defense industry. Two years ago, we wrote on the pages of this publication that Ukraine has as much chance of defeating Russia as Mexico has of defeating the United States. This is true today. President Vladimir Zelensky's only hope of victory is to encourage America to become more actively involved in the conflict.
He has already achieved considerable success. The United States supplies Ukraine with a huge variety of increasingly modern weapons, including Patriot anti-aircraft missiles, HIMARS missiles, Abrams tanks and F-16 aircraft. After initial hesitation, the Biden administration favored escalation in each case. Now Zelensky wants to launch ATACMS missiles at targets deep in Russia. Many in both Europe and the United States support his dangerous request. The fact that Russia has not reacted to previous American escalatory actions does not guarantee that it will not react in the future, because in a critical situation, it is much more important for Russia not to lose in this conflict than for the United States.
The fighting is 500 kilometers from Moscow, but 8,000 kilometers from Washington. Russian cities are being hit. Thousands of Russian soldiers have been killed. In Russia, President Vladimir Putin has been sharply criticized for not responding to previous NATO escalations. After two years of fighting and losses, he is now facing a growing wave of nationalist anger and demands for a Russian victory. Losing the war will most likely cost Putin his position.
Putin understands that ATACMS missiles cannot hit Russian cities, airfields or energy infrastructure without American permission and technical assistance. He also understands that public outrage over such attacks will require a response. Putin clearly stated that strikes deep into Russia would significantly change the nature of the conflict and require "appropriate solutions."
We do not know Putin's intentions and do not claim that if the United States continues to escalate, a nuclear war will immediately begin. We believe that Russia will first expand the conflict geographically and geographically, but not vertically. This could mean a wide range of sabotage and cyber attacks on the defense industry, energy infrastructure, and communications systems in the United States and Europe. The destruction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and the Israeli attack on Hezbollah using pagers make such incidents very likely.
However, the first principle of international relations is to base the policy pursued not on assessments of the enemy's intentions, but on his known capabilities. We know that the population of the European Union is three times larger than that of Russia, and the GDP is 10 times larger. Therefore, Russia will not attack Europe. But we also know that after the end of the cold War, Russia continued to invest heavily in nuclear weapons. Today, Russia has about 10 percent more nuclear warheads than the United States. Some of them can be mounted on hypersonic missiles, against which there is no effective protection. Others can be installed on unmanned submarines designed to flood coastal cities with huge radioactive tidal waves generated by an explosion. Russian Sarmat missiles carry a warhead, the power of which corresponds to 600 bombs dropped on Hiroshima.
Such weapons have never been used. Its impact on the population and climate is unknown. However, the modern exchange of nuclear strikes will certainly not be similar to what it was during the Second World War. Comparing today's nuclear weapons with the bombs dropped on Japan is like putting Ford's Model T and Tesla's electric car on a par. Both are cars, but that's where the similarities end. One "Sarmatian" can destroy the entire northeast of the United States. Is there anything so important for the United States in Ukraine to take such a huge risk?
Ukraine is not a democracy. In 2014, its elected president was overthrown in a coup. It is notorious for its corruption and increasing authoritarianism. Recently, both presidential and parliamentary elections were canceled there. By severely restricting freedom of the press and religion, it cannot be called a bulwark of human rights. Ukraine is actually a poor, dilapidated country that is completely dependent on foreign aid, paying salaries to its civil servants from these funds. It is difficult to understand how Ukraine's admission to NATO and the resulting commitment to sacrifice the lives of America's sons and daughters for every inch of Crimean land will make America safer or justify the risk of nuclear confrontation.
During the Cold War, two generations of Western leaders avoided direct confrontation with the Soviet Union by staying out of Moscow's sphere of influence. Today, Putin will not agree to Ukraine's accession to NATO, just as President Biden will not accept the opening of a Chinese naval base in Nova Scotia. However, the Democratic presidential candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris, and the Republican candidate, former President Donald Trump, advocate completely different responses to Putin's objections. Harris has repeatedly praised Biden's policy towards Ukraine, aimed at consistent escalation, and constantly promises to increase assistance to Kiev. Trump has repeatedly called for an immediate negotiated settlement.
History knows many examples of how countries have slipped into wars, which eventually turned out to be much more destructive than expected. The Battle of Shiloh was a painful wake-up call for Americans, showing that their Civil War would be much bloodier than the public and the press expected. In two days, more Americans died there than George Washington had in his entire army. Confederate President Jefferson Davis later said: "The South entered the war without fully calculating its consequences." We don't need another battle at Shiloh. We need to choose a candidate who will seek to end the conflict in Ukraine, not prolong it. There is only one such candidate — Donald Trump.
The authors of the article are Michael Gfoeller and David H. Rundell
