Months ago, Elon Musk warned that the West is foolishly sleepwalking into World War III in Ukraine. With the current Ukrainian ground invasion into Russia, we may have reached the point where Russian use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine begins, NATO gets drawn into a nuclear war, China exploits the opportunity to take Taiwan, and the rest of their alliance (Iran, North Korea) jumps in to smash their enemies. Meanwhile, the punished, humiliated U.S. abandons its role as the world’s policeman.
The list of foreign policy experts who criticized NATO expansion as too provocative and hostile to Russia (who gave up the Warsaw Pact, and expected NATO to also go away—or at least not expand) includes Henry Kissinger, George Kennan, Strobe Talbott, Robert Gates, and the Cato Institute’s Ted Galen Carpenter who wrote that: “It has long been clear that NATO expansion would lead to tragedy. We are now paying the price for the US’s arrogance.”
Russia opposed, warned and threatened for years that they would take action against NATO expansion, but pushed by President Clinton and other western leaders eager to score political points and reelection votes, the alliance continued to expand to nation’s bordering Russia. Far closer and more threatening than foreign missiles on Cuba would bother the U.S., NATO has pushed into countries all along Russia’s borders. As stated on NATO’s official website, there was a “decision by NATO Leaders at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of NATO.” Russia insisted this was intolerable, and in 2014, they followed through on their threats, seizing Crimea from Ukraine. According to the US Congressional Research Service, “since August 2021, the United States has been providing defense items to Ukraine via Presidential Drawdown Authority, by which the President can authorize the immediate transfer of articles and services from U.S. stocks.” In 2022, Russia invaded eastern Ukraine.
Yes, Putin is a villain and must be blamed and condemned for Russia’s war on Ukraine. But continuing to threaten and prod a dictator with nuclear weapons who keeps threatening to use them (or worse—a bio attack justified by claims of U.S. viral gain of function research in Ukraine) is the worst government irresponsibility.
Sleep walking is far too kind a description for asinine western policy. The provision of advanced long-range conventional weapons that Ukraine uses to attack Russia is obviously going to invite Russian retaliation against NATO as Russia has promised. We are not sleep walking accidentally into world war, U.S. and NATO and West European actions are moving us steadily towards global nuclear war. This is better described as drunk driving and buying votes with military spending and tough talk against exaggerated enemies. When the U.S. gives away old weapon systems (Presidential Drawdown Authority), it’s easier to justify purchase of new weapons systems, with Congressmen reaping big campaign donations and votes for boosting defense spending. Proclaiming Russia and China as threats to the U.S. also gains votes. There has been no honest public debate in the U.S. about how NATO expansion, similar to missiles in Cuba, is threatening to Russia. Nor are the threat descriptions to the homeland honest when Russia is fighting a former part of the Soviet Union and China rightly claims Taiwan is their territory and a continuing part of their civil war. Our foreign policy is not based on “realpolitik” (German for practical, foreign policy based on realistic considerations of circumstances and pragmatic objectives) but domestic politics—what’s best for buying campaign donations and reelection votes for career politicians. French President Macron similarly called for tough action against Russia, even sending NATO troops into Ukraine, to score political points at home. Russia is clearly a villain for seizing Crimea and invading Ukraine, and China is a clear threat to Taiwan and some disputed islands in what they regard as territorial waters (again the Cuba comparison to the U.S. is relevant, but rarely made in the west). But neither posses any threat to NATO unless we choose to prod and provoke them.
Putin and Russia have warned over the past year that they would use nuclear weapons to stop Ukrainian strikes into Russian territory, and take action against NATO countries supplying advanced, long-range conventional weaponry. They have done very public nuclear exercises to broadcast the threat. It is a realistic threat, especially with Putin’s reputation, rule, and predicament.
Russia’s conventional forces have failed miserably in the war with Ukraine—and the latest situation with Ukrainian forces now advancing into Russia, and doing very well, is pushing Putin into a position where he may believe he must take decisive action to stop Ukrainian attacks and reverse his military failure in Ukraine. Ukraine’s offensive push into Russia towards Kursk has given Putin a fantastic excuse to use nuclear weapons. And unlike conventional battles, Russia should have decisive advantages in fighting a nuclear war in Ukraine and Europe.
Again, not for realpolitik or sound foreign/military policy, but for domestic political correctness and votes, the U.S. Army was forced to surrender all its responsive, battlefield capable nuclear weapons systems. Not by a liberal Democratic President, but a Republican, the first George Bush.
President George H. W. Bush created the Presidential Nuclear Initiatives (PNIs) in September 1991 to score political points at home and encourage then President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev to eliminate tactical or battlefield missiles nuclear weapons. Just like Richard Nixon raising social security payments to divert Democratic votes to his side, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris offering tax free tips to help win 2024 votes, George Bush offered a “peace dividend” of reduced military spending and eliminating battlefield nuclear weapons to swing votes that normally would go Democratic to GOP candidates. Many US politicians, United Nations and NATO officials, proudly proclaim either “abhorrence” of “tactical” use of nuclear weapons, insisting that any limited use of nuclear weapons is inherently wrong and evil. The United States foolishly eliminating all of its ground-launched short-range tactical nuclear weapons, destroying all short-range ballistic missile warheads and nuclear artillery shells. The Army was left with no way to call in quick battlefield nuclear weapons to stop a heavy enemy ground attack. Russia and China not only kept, but continue to modernize and expand their tactical, battlefield nuclear weapons. The U.S. unilaterally abandoned, destroyed it’s responsive, short range, low yield battlefield nuclear weapons, disarmed itself. A political peace dividend benefit was achieved for the Bush Administration, but national security was sacrificed. The lack of battlefield nuclear weapons capability invites enemies to use these weapons—especially given western superiority in conventional weaponry.
Russia can use battlefield nuclear weapons in Ukraine, a surprise attack at first that could destroy the bulk of Ukraine’s Army in a surprise attack if dozens of nuclear weapons are used. Ukraine has no nuclear weapons to retaliate with. With air bursts, there will be little radioactive fallout to harm Russia. They may also choose to attack NATO nations if support for Ukraine continues, especially given our lack of battlefield nuclear capability.
If NATO foolishly tries to assist and this escalates into a nuclear war in Europe, Russia could win this because of the asinine U.S. destruction of all its fast response battlefield nuclear weapons. Aircraft delivered nuclear weapons left are no substitute. My Harvard PhD Dissertation topic was “Underground Nuclear Defense Shelters and Field Fortifications for NATO Troops.” The key to battlefield nuclear success is rapidly transitioning (in minutes, not hours it would take to call in, authorize air delivered nuclear weapons) from conventional fighting positions on the surface to shallow underground shelters. NATO not only lacks battlefield weapons, but due again to political prohibitions, does not train or equip soldiers to fight battlefield nuclear war. Russian military forces are not so unprepared and politically hobbled. Russia would get crushed in a conventional war with NATO, but could prevail in a nuclear war.
While U.S. and NATO are sleep walking, drunk driving, irresponsibly pandering for domestic votes; Ukraine is shrewdly, deliberately trying to move NATO into WW 3 so they don’t have to fight Russia alone. Their current Kursk region offensive is a justified and brilliant move by Ukraine if it yields a Russian nuclear attack on Poland and NATO countries that have provided Ukraine tanks, aircraft and weapons for offensive action. But for the U.S. and NATO it could bring a disastrous nuclear war that may indeed escalate steadily towards larger nuclear attacks and strategic strikes on Russian and U.S. territory.
