Nuclear weapons are the most dangerous weapons on the planet. One can destroy a whole city, potentially killing millions, and jeopardizing the natural environment and lives of future generations through its long-term catastrophic effects.
Yet, there have been calls for the Biden administration to do more on the military front since Russian tanks and men poured into Ukraine, risking a nuclear war. Critics have called for a broader US involvement, including establishing a no-fly zone, providing fighter jets to Ukraine, and even preparing to deploy U.S. forces into battle.
The reports of Russian crimes will put further pressure on the US to respond more forcefully. However, the case against US escalation is as strong as ever.
NATO's caution, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is a major embarrassment. In a March rebuke to Germany's parliament, he referenced the Holocaust, saying, "Every year, politicians say, 'Never again.'" Now I know how useless these words are."
What's shocking is that, despite horrible visuals and heartbreaking anecdotes, Biden has refused to get more involved. The only thing worse than Vladimir Putin's indiscriminate savagery, he and most Washington leaders recognize, is the disastrous results of a nuclear assault. Biden's top job is to make sure that doesn't happen, and it should be.
It's simple to argue that the United States and its allies should have intervened when Adolf Hitler began his assault. Hitler, on the other hand, lacked apocalyptic weapons. Putin is one of them. "Thus far, the fundamental goal of our military system has been to win wars," observed military planner Bernard Brodie in 1946, a year after the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. Its main goal from now on must be to keep them at bay."The United States and the Soviet Union became the worst of foes in the decades following World War II, plotting and struggling against one other in every corner of the globe. Both countries had sizable military forces. Both fought battles on the other side of the world. Their unrelenting rivalry, though, had obvious bounds.
In 1986, historian John Lewis Gaddis stated, "At no point during the long history of the Cold War have Soviet and American military troops engaged each other directly in continuous battles." What's to stop you? Because neither of them wanted to risk a conventional fight ending in Armageddon. Leaders start wars because they believe they will win. In a nuclear battle, however, there can be no winner.
The Soviet Union is no longer in existence. However, the regime that replaced it has shown everyone what it is capable of. Putin warned at the start of the invasion that any country that tried to stop him would face "consequences you have never seen in your whole history." He then stated that he had placed Russia's nuclear forces on high alert.
The location of his red line is unclear. During our fights against the North Koreans and the North Vietnamese during the Cold War, the Soviets sent weaponry and other assistance to them. During the Russian occupation, we did the same for the Afghans. So far, our help to Ukraine has followed the rules of the road.
Setting up a no-fly zone, on the other hand, would not work because American planes would be shooting down Russian planes. Sending jet fighters to Zelenskyy would be a grey area, but it would risk pushing Putin too far.
Maybe he's joking when he says he'll use nukes. But it's possible he isn't. Believing him and then being proven wrong would be disastrous. The repercussions of not believing him and being wrong, on the other hand, would be catastrophic.
The damage wreaked by Russia in Ukraine may appear so horrific that doing nothing to halt it seems like a moral crime. However, post-World War II history has taught us that occasionally unfathomable moral outrages must be endured.
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union's communist rulers enslaved half of Europe, smashing democratic movements wherever they arose. They mistreated their own citizens, incarcerating 14 million in forced labour camps. Rather than strive to reverse these abominable barbarisms and risk extinction, the West has no choice but to accept them.
Finding a method to stop the war through a negotiated settlement is the main priority here. This will unavoidably require the rest of the world to ratify some unlawful Russian gains. However, there is no viable alternative. When it comes to foreign policy, the choice is frequently between a bad one and a worse one.
The photographs of civilians slaughtered by Russian troops and dumped in the streets or buried in mass graves are heartbreaking. But, before we respond in kind, let's take a close look at another group of images: those from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
No comments:
Post a Comment