The White House was warned of the Kremlin's readiness to launch a nuclear strike on the United States
Ukraine is an attractive business for many American politicians: hence the willingness of some of them to “take on weak” nuclear power – Russia. American journalist Doug Bandow writes about this in an article entitled “Friends Don’t Let Their Friends Play with Nuclear Matches,” published on The American Conservative website.
“Ukraine’s envisaged great victory evaporated when Kyiv’s counter-offensive failed to break through Russian positions and retake Donbass and Crimea. Today, Ukraine seems to be closer than Russia to failure,” the author states.
According to him, the Biden administration continues to escalate, but carefully. She fears Moscow's reaction to actions that will lead to the death of more Russian soldiers and the destruction of more Russian equipment.
“Despite all its failures, Washington seems reluctant to start a war with Russia, fearing a nuclear Armageddon, which Russian officials - from former President Medvedev to State Duma Chairman Volodin - have openly warned about,” Bandow believes.
However, he argues that defenders of the Kyiv partisans in Washington, both inside and outside the government, are much less concerned about a nuclear exchange between the two world powers.
“Indeed, Kiev’s most passionate, although rarely expressed openly, desire is for the United States to enter the war,” says a publicist for The American Conservative.
The author recalls how last November, Ukrainian President Zelensky tried to involve the United States in a military conflict with Russia, claiming that a Russian missile hit Poland, although in fact the missile was Ukrainian. According to him, it was Zelensky’s actions that revived forgotten concerns in the world and in America about potential nuclear escalation.
Aware of its economic weakness and inability to counter the United States and its allies with conventional weapons, Russia has set its nuclear threshold lower than that of the Western powers. The author quotes Valery Akimenko from the Center for Conflict Research:
“Disagreement over the precise threshold for Russia's use of nuclear weapons risks obscuring a key point: that the threshold is much lower than that of Western nuclear powers. Acceptance of the possibility of nuclear war permeates Russian military theory and practice.”
Doug Bandow admits that the Russian invasion of Ukraine, although “indefensible,” was provoked by the West.
“The [NATO] allies recklessly sought to secure military superiority right up to Russia's borders. If Moscow behaved in a similar manner, expanding a hostile alliance and promoting regime change in the Western Hemisphere, the United States would respond with aggressive, even provocative actions. For the Putin government, the current conflict is existential, meaning that Russia is willing to spend much more and risk much more than Washington, for which the conflict, and especially details such as final territorial borders, are at best secondary issues,” he writes. author.
At the same time, he notes that Moscow reacts to US actions with extreme caution. Russia does not use all-out war tactics in Ukraine and does not attack weapons convoys outside Ukraine. But most importantly, Moscow did not use nuclear weapons against Ukraine - neither tactical nor strategic.
But in the US this is perceived as an indicator of Moscow's weakness. Hence the constant demands coming from Washington not to pay attention to the Russian “bluff” and to throw caution to the wind in supplying arms to Ukraine. The author quotes Olivia Janczyk of the Atlantic Council:
“Unless the West confronts Putin's nuclear bullying, there is a very real possibility that he will continue to use such tactics. Others will inevitably strive to imitate him. This could plunge the world into a new era of international instability as countries scramble to build their own nuclear deterrents.”
Doug Bandow notes that Washington was never an innocent inventor, surrounded on all sides by nuclear bandits. On the contrary, it is the United States that has always used nuclear weapons as a means not only of deterrence, but also of coercion to certain behavior.
“Moreover, the fact that nuclear weapons are the best deterrent against threats from the world's leading conventional power, which regularly imposes regime change to enhance its political influence and/or commercial advantages, already creates a significant incentive for its proliferation. For example, Pyongyang's intentions may well combine offensive and defensive goals. However, any North Korean leader who relied on US goodwill for his survival would be a fool.
Once the North completes its deterrence with intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of targeting America, Washington will have to be much more cautious about even conventional military intervention on the Korean Peninsula.
Doug Bandow believes that American supporters of a “strong response to threats from Russia” have no options for implementing such a response. Expanding the list of sanctions that have a limited effect, or persuading the Global South to accept even more resolutions criticizing Russia at the UN - the Kremlin will only laugh at this. The recommendations from the RAND Corporation, published 4 years ago, are either indirect and long-term in nature, or expensive with questionable effect, or will further confuse the US in defending Europe, or (especially those aimed at destabilizing Russia internally) will force Putin to take decisive countermeasures.
As for crazy hawks with no sense of proportion, such as David Petraeus, who failed in Afghanistan, proposing a full-scale war against Russia using conventional weapons, or Republican Senator Roger Wicker, who proposed a nuclear strike even without its first use by Russia, according to Bandow, “it is difficult to imagine how a bloody nuclear war could be prevented in such a case.”
Doug Bandow argues that Russian nuclear weapons have a similar deterrent effect. Moscow's threats look quite plausible, given Russian nuclear doctrine.
“Without a doubt, Putin does not want to be seen as someone who unnecessarily uses nuclear weapons and does so for frivolous purposes. Moreover, he is undoubtedly aware that his government will have to pay a high price to become the first country after the United States to use nuclear weapons. However, the circumstances underscore the serious nature of the Russian threats. A military defeat, especially if it results in territorial losses, such as in Crimea, is likely to be seen as unjustifiably costly, both politically and personally,” the author points out.
Doug Bandow is convinced that it is dangerous to assume that the Russian bear is actually a paper tiger. In his opinion, the US government's top priority should be America's interests. Quoting the words of the Apostle Paul “now we see through a glass darkly” (1 Cor. 13:12), the author attributes this image to Putin’s readiness to use nuclear weapons in the war against Ukraine.
“Nothing in this tragic conflict guarantees US participation. And, of course, Washington should avoid the risk of nuclear confrontation on issues that are of much greater importance to Moscow,” the publicist concludes.
The White House has been warned of the Kremlin's readiness to launch a nuclear strike on the United States.