By Glenn Diesen, Twitter/X, 4/24/24
Glenn Diesen is a Norwegian academic and political scientist. He is a professor at the School of Business of the University of South-Eastern Norway.
The idea that NATO can continue to send ever-more powerful and long-range weapons to Ukraine without any retaliation from Russia is premised on the dangerous self-delusion that NATO is not a participant in the conflict.
But if we accept that this is also a NATO War, then it is obvious that Russia will eventually feel compelled to retaliate against NATO to restore deterrence, which could trigger a nuclear war.
Consider the following:
– Immediately after President Yanukovich had been toppled with the support of the US, the first thing the new US-backed Ukrainian intelligence chief did was to call CIA & MI6 for a partnership against Russia – and secret CIA bases were established along the Russian border (this partnership was established before Russia responded by taking back Crimea). (NY Times)
– This occurred as the US asserted ever-greater control over the Ukrainian government and its policies: The leaked Nuland call revealed that Washington dictated who would be part of the post-coup government and who had to stay out. American citizens also took several top positions in the new government (such as the finance minister post). Ukraine’s General Prosecutor Shokin argued the US was running Ukraine as a colony as new appointments had to be approved by Washington. Biden even fired Shokin when he investigated the Ukrainian energy company Burisma where Biden had placed his son Hunter
– Over the next decade, the US and its allies built a powerful Ukrainian army while sabotaging the Minsk agreement and later (after the Russian invasion) also sabotaged the Istanbul negotiations. Weapon systems poured in, Ukrainian ports were modernised to fit American warships, and Ukraine was becoming a de facto NATO member. Top Ukrainian officials like Arestovich argued openly they were preparing for a war with Russia. A top adviser to former president Nicolas Sarkozy, warned that the US-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership of November 2021 “convinced Russia that it must attack or be attacked” (NY Times)
– Since the Russian invasion, the mantra from NATO has since been that weapons are the path to peace while refusing to engage in negotiations or diplomacy for more than 2 years. Our media keeps ignoring the horrific Ukrainian losses and instead chant that Ukraine is winning to maintain public support for the war. NATO has supplied the weapons, intelligence, and participated in in the war planning. A source in the Ukrainian general staff even argued that NATO pressured Ukraine to carry out disastrous counter-offensives.
– More powerful and long-range weapons are now sent and Blinken argues that Ukraine can use them to strike inside Russian territory. Leaked calls from German officers reveal that long-range missiles are to be used to destroy the Crimean bridge and that either Germans or Americans can assist in operating them
– Putin is saying that the US objective was “to spark a war in Europe, and to eliminate competitors by using a proxy force… They plan to finish us once and for all”
– The US should ask itself: How would Washington respond if Russia was engaged in a similar proxy war against the US on its borders in Mexico? The conviction in our own virtue, that we are merely “helping Ukraine”, blinds us to the fact that we are taking giant steps toward nuclear war.
All true, and a good summary.
But the real question is, quo vadis?
yes and no.
RU will do everything to not go to war with NATO. Unlike NATO they know what it means to get its population nearly wiped out. So Russia would rather cut its ties to Europe completely than sacrifice the planet.
In this equation there is however the problem of still inadequate RU early warning systems and US brinkmanship with their WMD toys. Within this space the best laid plans can fail.
I am not claiming to be right. But I have the impression that even by people like the honourable Glenn Diesen there is a lack of understanding which side here is in fact trigger-happy.
One word on statements since much has been made of what “Putin said.” Putin quoted the RU nuclear posture. It says what every American Pentagon expert on this subject knows. Putin expressed aloud what Americans thought.
And Putin does what he says. That much is clear.
What is much less obvious is the other side. The US doesn´t make a peep about WMDs. They wish to create the appearance that the US actually has no WMDs at all. And that nuclear war would just fall from the sky. Without them having a hand in it. All blame on RU.
This is again – as always – PR.
Which means: They say THIS but they do something entirely different. But totally ignored by our media. Which is the opposite of what Mr. Putin does. If someone has 5000 nukes but pretends to not having them makes me feel way more uncomfortable than the other “big guy” who admit to those missiles.
Putin speaks publicly about these matters – and Diesen seems to not understand this – because it is the only channel left to him to relay a message to the American morons: “Do not start a war because we will react.”
Since in D.C. there still are too many dimwit PhDs who believe that the era of MAD is over and that RU WMD-wise is still a basket case. “So why not take em out.” Apparently it needs strongman-talk to explain to them that this is suicide.
Our media do not know this and do not report it. And there is hardly a handful of experts in Europe who are aware of this. That´s the real worrying issue here.
So both sides are prone to do the same. But one side talks about it. The other doesn´t. One side is aware of the risks the other – ?
p.s. Those who have seen the satire “Don´t Look Up” on Netflix might understand what I am getting at, re: this irresponsible focus on PR instead of policy: Lets look good even in the face of annihilation.