Author: Douglas McGregor, American Conservative
It is an axiom of war that it is always desirable to have friendly territory beyond one’s own borders, or else the ability to prevent the accumulation of significant military power in neutral territory to attack one’s own territory. When they lacked sufficient military power, the United States promulgated the Monroe Doctrine for a similar purpose.
When Moscow sent Russian forces into eastern Ukraine in February 2022, it did so without any plan to conquer or intend to permanently control Ukrainian territory. As Western military observers noted at the time, the Russian forces that intervened were too small and incapable of any mission other than a limited, short-period intervention. Indeed, Western observers predicted that Russian forces would soon run out of ammunition, equipment and soldiers.
The rationale for Moscow’s limited military commitment was obvious. Moscow initially sought neutrality for Ukraine as a solution to Ukraine’s hostility to Russia and its cooperation with NATO, rather than territorial subjugation or conquest. Moscow believed, not without reason, that a neutral Ukrainian nation-state could be a cordon sanitaire that would protect Russia from NATO and at the same time provide NATO with isolation from Russia.
Washington’s nearly three years of virtually unlimited funding for advanced weapons and support in the form of distance-based surveillance, intelligence and reconnaissance for a proxy war designed to destroy Russia makes this approach laughable. Chancellor (Angela) Merkel’s admission that the Western-promoted Minsk agreements were indeed designed to buy time for Ukraine to build up its military might is enough for Moscow to reject Western promises to ever respect, let alone enforce, Ukrainian neutrality.
Asked on January 19 about the potential for talks with Washington and NATO, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said: “We are ready (for talks). But unlike the story with Istanbul, there will be no pause in hostilities during the negotiations. The process must continue. Second, of course, the realities on the ground became different, significantly different.” What do Lavrov’s words mean?
In 1982, Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov – Chief of the Soviet General Staff – claimed that control of the Rhine River would determine the outcome of any future war with NATO in Central Europe. There is no doubt that Russia’s top military leaders have already concluded that Russian control of the Dnieper River is essential to Russian national security.
In addition to annexing historically Russian cities such as Odessa and Kharkiv, Moscow will almost certainly push for a modern demilitarized zone from the Dnieper River to NATO’s eastern border to prevent the re-emergence of a hostile military force in western Ukraine. Whether the Poles, Hungarians or Belarusians will decide to engage Moscow in discussions about Ukrainian territory with historical ties to their countries is unclear, but the impending collapse of the Ukrainian state and armed forces will undoubtedly lead to such discussions.
Washington’s strategy vis-à-vis Moscow, if it can be called a strategy, has consisted of orchestrating coercive measures throughout the Atlantic alliance – economic, diplomatic and military – to fatally injure Russia and destabilize its government. Washington’s unrealistic approach has failed and NATO – the framework for its implementation – is now fatally weakened, not Russia.
As a result, the Washington brand was significantly shrunk, even weakened. Washington’s belief that with the combined might of NATO’s scientific and industrial might it could achieve a strategic victory over Russia by arming the Ukrainians to do the fighting for them turned out to be completely wrong. Like Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1939, who expected the Germans to become stalemated with the Anglo-French armies on the model of World War I, Washington did not consider the possibility that Ukraine would lose the battle.
In the 1930s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt became trapped in a debt spiral from “special interest” spending. Against logic and affordability, Roosevelt opted for more federal spending until he realized it wasn’t working. When war broke out in Europe, Roosevelt saw an opportunity to pull American society out of the Great Depression by leading the United States into war. Roosevelt’s scheme worked. World War II revived the American economy and ended chronic unemployment in the United States. At the same time, America’s physical isolation kept American infrastructure and the American people out of reach of enemies.
President Biden and Congress are on a similar course with far-reaching consequences, but today’s horrifically destructive modern weapons make the option for war suicidal. In other words, the problems of the 21st century cannot be solved using 20th century plans and policies. Instead of creating yet another false narrative to justify funding a corrupt Ukrainian state that is collapsing, Washington and its allies should ask themselves the point of a new, costly cold war directed at Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and a host of like-minded countries about the world that differ significantly from our own.
Business schools teach their students that good brands have the power to influence decision-making and create communities of like-minded people. Not only companies need brands, countries need them too. When asked about Washington’s ability to deal with the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, President Biden said: “We are the most powerful nation in the world, in the history of the world. We can take care of both (wars).” Biden is wrong. America’s resources are not unlimited. Our power is limited.
In Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, the America brand suffered. Americans need (and should demand) a sober analysis of the facts from the men who want to be president. They must be forced to determine the true national interests of the United States—a process that must also determine the political and cultural realities that it is not Washington’s job to change.
Douglas McGregor is an American reserve colonel, decorated veteran, former adviser to the head of the Pentagon in the administration of Donald Trump
Source: “Labor”
