Let’s go through the trajectory of the U.S.-NATO-Ukraine v. Russia war. The U.S.-NATO arrangement with Ukraine went from the provision of defensive weapons to Ukraine, to missiles, to heavy tanks, to longer range missiles, to training Ukrainian pilots on F-16s, to next, certainly, the provision of F-16s.
Now the Ukrainians, or Ukrainian backed forces, regularly attack inside Russia and increasingly attack Moscow, home to the Kremlin. It gets worse, it is possible that one of the parties to the war may have deliberately destroyed the previously damaged Nova Kakhovka dam on Ukraine’s Dnipro River, which, in addition to the massive flooding, has dumped 150 tons of industrial oil into the environment, and cut off drinking water, agricultural water, and hydroelectricity to a large portion of the surrounding region–it is a humanitarian and ecological disaster. This is a huge dam; there were areas where the reservoir was so wide that one could not see the opposite bank.
The war, which has progressed from a defensive posture to an offensive effort by the Ukrainian state, has moved a long way from the mere provision of defensive weapons by western aligned states to Ukraine, and has escalated to the point where one of the parties to the war may have deemed the destruction of a major dam necessary in order to achieve its war objectives. What’s next?
The Ukrainians state they will not negotiate until Russia withdraws from all of Ukraine, including Crimea. Crimea is the disputed Ukrainian peninsula of mostly Russian citizens, gifted to Ukraine by Russia during 1954, and annexed by Russia during 2014 after the western influenced overthrow of the democratically elected, but somewhat friendly to Russia, President Viktor Yanukovych. The southern tip of the peninsula houses the strategically important Russian naval base at Sevastopol. What would be left to negotiate after a complete withdrawal of Russian forces? Not much.
The Americans act as if they have no say in the war or settlement matters, and state that it is up to the Ukrainians to do as they see fit. The German Chancellor Olaf Scholz sounds increasingly belligerent, although it is not clear that a majority of the German people agree with his stance; this, however, seems to matter little. The French; under President Macron, who along with the Germans, had, at least initially tried to restrain NATO’s ambitions in Russia’s “near abroad”; seem now to be fully onboard with the total war effort. The UK is just hardcore–they simply appear to not like the Russians.
Several corporate press reports early during the war stated that a couple months into the war, Ukraine and Russia had come to a near settlement, but then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson rushed onto the scene and convinced the Ukrainians to not give up the fight against the newly perceived vulnerable Russian military. Apparently, that is an easy argument to make when it is not the lives of one’s own family members that are at stake–how arrogant!
What’s next? Tactical nuclear weapons, followed by strategic nuclear weapons? The former are designed for use within the battlefield while the latter are intended for international or intercontinental strikes. There has always been a problem with the nuclear deterrence argument; in addition to the destruction of hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there is a flaw in the MAD doctrine which underpins support for these weapons.
Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), is the theory that nations will not engage in nuclear warfare, because, as the title suggests, their destruction would be mutually assured. What is excluded from this theory is what if you put a nation on the brink of destruction through conventional warfare? If a nation has nothing to lose, if its very existence is at stake, then it might make sense, in a twisted sort of way, to resort to nuclear weapons.
It appears the West is willing to put Russia in this position. A very badly-going war for Russia could force Putin from power and create a great upheaval in the Russian Federation which contains over 100 ethnicities. This could split the Nation apart. The existential threat to the Russian state is exactly one of the two conditions in which Russia has formally reserved the right to use nuclear weapons. The other condition is if Russia, or its allies, experience a nuclear attack.
As stated in the “Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence”, the Russian Federation retains the right to use nuclear weapons “in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, AS WELL AS IN THE EVENT OF AGGRESSION AGAINST THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION WITH THE USE OF CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS WHEN THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE STATE IS IN JEOPARDY.”, (emphasis added). Arguably, Russia might perceive the union of the Federation is at risk.
The long awaited Ukrainian counteroffensive is apparently underway, and, depending on which press account you believe, things might not be going well for the Ukrainian forces. Perhaps as a result, there is speculation that some NATO members, particularly Poland, and perhaps even the Baltic states, may soon contribute forces to the Ukrainian effort. This would align with many in the West who want to impose a total defeat on Russia and likely confirm the belief of many Russians who believe the West would like to dismantle the Russian state. If, indeed, Russia is responsible for the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam, a debatable point, this would demonstrate the lengths to which Russia would go to preserve some sort of victory. What would be next? Need I be explicit?
I don’t generally like presidential elections, but this time around, the elections can’t come soon enough. The war will be a hot topic this election cycle. Perhaps, within this forum, some of these issues will get aired-out; and perhaps I have become delusional to think political candidates will address the issue in a meaningful and well-informed way.
The debate will go like this: Supporters of continued U.S. support for war will argue that the war is the result of the unprovoked aggression of one madman–Vladimir Putin, who must be stopped before he rolls through Europe. Then they will make some nonsense argument about U.S. support for democracy which belies a long history of U.S.’ overthrows of democratically elected governments which did not support U.S. interests, see particularly Central and South America, and U.S. support for ruthless dictatorships which did, and do, support U.S.’ interest, again see Central and South America in the past, and Saudi Arabia and Egypt today.
The above argument demonstrates a total lack of awareness of the events which have led to the war and further distorts Russia’s awareness of its own limitations when one considers Russia’s meager $85 billion annual military budget when compared to NATO’s combined military budget in excess of $1.2 trillion, and growing.
Those opposed to U.S. support for the war will argue that the war is none of the U.S.’ business and that the U.S. should spend its money elsewhere. This demonstrates a total lack of concern for the civilian and military casualties on both sides of the conflict; it also ignores the U.S.-West’s role in the provocation of this war. While the political campaigns will likely go no deeper than the above rationales, the campaigns will, at least, put a spotlight on the war and perhaps inspire some people to explore deeper the causes and solutions to this war.
In the end it is going to be up to us, the people, to shape the debate. Politicians will go no deeper than necessary to acquire our votes. Only an informed electorate can bring forth a meaningful debate which will enable a meaningful settlement to the war.
Otherwise, “what’s next” might be something none of us want to experience.