Here are my two recent letter-to-the-editor submissions to the Washington Post regarding supplying long range missiles provided by NATO to destroy strategic targets deep into Russia. So far neither has been published.
In the David Ignatius op-ed on September 16 on the Russian Ukrainian War, he describes a high level meeting in Europe supporting Ukraine war efforts with the theme, “The Necessity to Win.” Ignatius correctly questions whether this initiative could lead to a dangerous escalation. The current Biden Administration policy of fully supporting Ukraine “as long as it takes” is now front and center as Biden contemplates whether to approve the use of NATO produced, long range weapons that could strike deep into the heart of Russia. Putin responded over the weekend that this approval would in effect be a declaration of war between NATO and Russia. He also has assembled tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus and has stated that he will use them if the security of Russia is threatened. Some say that Putin is bluffing, but what if he is not? This could put the world on the edge of a nuclear war, which would end life on Earth as we know it. There must be a peaceful solution to this conflict, which neither side will be able to “win,” and it must happen soon.
Risking World War III
In a Washington Post editorial published on September 23, the Post argues that Biden should lend his support to allowing Ukraine to use long-range missiles to destroy strategic targets 155 miles into Russia and supports delivering long range tactical bombs (“ATACMS”), since “Ukraine urgently needs all the weapons it can get to continue to stave off Mr. Putin’s aggressions.” The Post does not mention that Putin has declared that the use of these weapons would result in a declaration of war between Russia and NATO. The Post, however, does acknowledge Putin “issuing ‘red lines,’ implicitly threatening nuclear war.” The Post dismisses this as an empty threat noting that Putin has not “followed through on his threats. There is no reason to think that he would risk a wider war with the North American Treaty Organization at a time when his forces are already severally depleted.”
There is no mention in the editorial of the need to bring this war to a negotiated end, given the risks associated with further escalation. Nor is there any indication that the editorial writers have considered the consequences to the world as we know it should Russia declare war on NATO and should Russia follow through on Putin’s threat to use nuclear weapons. The depletion of Russian troops is not the reason for NATO to escalate against Russia but rather a warning that when a ruthless dictator is pushed into a corner and threatened with defeat, he will use whatever weapons he has at his disposal to strike back.
Should the unthinkable happen, game over for the planet Earth as we know it.
I got a lot of thoughtful feedback from my last blog post urging Biden not to approve the use of NATO long range missiles against Russia. The consensus was that appeasement never works and that the risk of nuclear war is probably not that high given that it would destroy most of the planet. In other words, the risk is worth it.
I respectfully disagree. It is exactly in times like this when no one believes any nation could be so foolish as to start a nuclear war that we are most at risk. Friends, do not deceive yourselves. Nuclear war could happen. Read Jacobsen’s book, Nuclear War, and then let’s continue the conversation. Does anyone believe that these weapons will never be used, ever? The only way that we can assure that they won’t is to outlaw them and dispose of them. If they remain an option, at some point in the future, odds are they will be used. Maybe by accident, maybe by design. Go to the internet and see what AI has to say about it.
Some will conclude that as has been the case before, I am simply over reacting. I hope they are right. But I also must say that given what is happening in Ukraine and in Palestine, Israel, and now Lebanon, this is the most apprehensive I have been since the fall of the Soviet Union that calamity will befall our troubled planet.
Joe, I like your cautionary words. Putin is in this war for his survival.
I don’t see this ruthless dude ever backing down. The only hope I have is that
something will happen to him even though he is guarded to the hilt.
crucially, we need to win this election in Nov. and keep the heat on the battleground of Ukraine.
Maybe Russians will finally sour on the war and force him to negotiate.
Joe,
What do you think a negotiated settlement of the Russo-Ukraine war would look like? What would be a disincentive to keep Putin at bay in future disputes.
When he first started this war, he clearly threatened nuclear attacks on any nation that interfered in the war. We and NATO have certainly interfered, and the world is still alive and kicking.
J.K.
Probably allowing Russia to keep a portion of the Russian-speaking portion that Russians now occupy, but I acknowledge that there is no happy ending. As for appeasement issue, this ill advised war has been a disaster for Putin. He is responsible for something like 180,000 Russian casualties and over 70,000 deaths and what does he have to show for it? The Russians occupy only a small portion of Ukraine. Not to mention that he has destroyed a large part of the country he has invaded. Plus this prompted the expansion of NATO. This has been a colossal tragedy far exceeding our ill adventures in Vietnam. I am wondering when the Russian people will revolt…..
Probably the end game will be that Russia occupies a portion of what they have previously occupied (Crimea and Donbas), or even all of what they previously occupied, but that the international community does not recognize it as legitimate (sort of like was true during the Cold War for the Baltic States). Also (I hope) there will be a fairly rapid path for Ukraine to enter the EU, and a clear path to enter NATO down the road.