Using Ukraine as a Bloodied Pawn
U.S. and NATO officials routinely contend that assisting Ukraine in its war against Russia is a moral as well as a strategic imperative. Ukraine is supposedly on the frontlines of a global struggle between democracy and freedom on one side and brutal authoritarianism on the other.
That justification lacks credibility for two reasons. First, Ukraine itself is a corrupt, repressive autocracy, not a freedom-loving democracy, even if one uses the most flexible, expansive definition of “democracy.” Second, the Russia-Ukraine war is a nasty turf fight over mundane stakes, not part of an existential global confrontation between good and evil.
It is hard to determine how much Western political leaders and their media mouthpieces actually believe their own moralistic propaganda. Some likely have drunk the Kool Aid, but others clearly have more practical (and less savory) reasons for wanting Washington to wage a proxy war against Russia.
First and foremost, the financial benefits to the military-industrial complex are enormous. The United States has already provided more than $100 billion in aid to Kyiv, and a major portion of those funds are going to pay for Ukraine’s purchases (now or in the near future) of weapons systems from Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, or other manufacturers. Those firms also will benefit from the destruction of weapons already provided to Kyiv, since US stockpiles supposedly must be replenished. The usual collection of hawks already are sounding alarms that the arsenals of the United States and its NATO allies have become significantly depleted.
However, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin may have inadvertently disclosed a broader, ignoble motive for the proxy war. An April 2022 statement that he issued in Poland at the end of his stealth visit to Kyiv emphasized that Washington’s goal was not merely to help Ukraine repel Russia’s invasion, but to “weaken Russia” to the point that it could no longer pose a threat to any other country. Achieving such an objective would indisputably require a prolonged war in Ukraine – regardless of the consequences to the Ukrainian people.
“Ukraine is already a de facto member of NATO.” — Oleksii Reznikov, Defense Minister of Ukraine
If reports are correct that modern Western weapon systems are slated to pour into Ukraine–the latest US and German tanks, Patriot missile systems, and other current weaponry–Minister Reznikov is correct.
These weapons imply that Ukraine has enough soldiers left to use them. It will require months to prepare Ukraine for these weapons. A logistical system is necessary for the delivery, maintenance, and protection of the weaponry from Russian air and missile attack. This will require US/NATO personnel on the ground in Ukraine if the weapons are to be effectively used.
In other words, the “limited military operation” has widened into a war between the US/NATO/Ukraine and Russia.
Apparently, it is going to be a war without a NATO declaration of war. The reason is that if all the weaponry promised is delivered, NATO and the US will be without fighting ability except in Ukraine where the weapons will be located.
Russia could, if she had the leadership, simply sweep through weapons-depleted Baltics and Finland around Germany into France and circle back to Serbia, leaving East and West Europe cut off and surrounded. But this would make the war officially one with NATO, and the US would have to use its only means–nuclear weapons.
A Russian military operation that the Kremlin should have completed in a few days eight years ago has now, once belatedly begun, extended another year. The consequence of the Kremlin’s unpreparedness and endless delay is a full-fledged involvement of US/NATO in the war with the aim of retaking Donbass and Crimea from Russia. The increased Ukrainian firepower means far more Russian casualties, and Washington’s involvement has passed the threshold at which Washington can accept a Russian victory.
No comments:
Post a Comment