The U.S. Is Giving Russia The Choice Of Total Capitulation Or Continuing To Kill More Ukrainians

My dog and I had a standoff at the back door today about whether I was going to offer her a treat to come in or not. It was a chilly evening and I did not want to stand there with the door open. She saw an opportunity to negotiate num-nums from me. It reminded me of the Ukraine situation, only without the nuclear weapons.

Now some may think that I should not speak lightly of such matters, or that I should not speak my mind at all but leave such opinions to the policy makers who know far more than I. Were it some lesser matter, like how to train my dog, I might agree. But what we have going on right now is a matter of life and death, not merely for myself and my dog, but potentially for all life on Earth. Excuse me if I do not remain silent.

Whatever reasons Russia may have had for invading Ukraine, they’re stuck in it now. Let’s assume the worst for argument’s sake and say that Russia had zero legitimate reasons for entering Ukraine and has indiscriminately killed civilians in a shock and awe campaign© (Copyright USA, 2003). It’s a little too late for them to say “whoops” and quietly back out of it. Not that anyone’s asking for an apology. What the U.S. and Ukraine are calling for is regime change in Russia. No calls for peace talks are coming from Washington or Kiev, no desire to negotiate a deal that might bring an end to the fighting. The statement from both Ukraine and the U.S. that is being repeated over and over is there is no other option than that Ukraine must win the war. How is this other than a call for unconditional surrender from Russia?

How is Russia expected to respond to such a demand from a much smaller nation that is militarily overmatched? Not to mention that Russia has a nuclear arsenal as large as any as has ever existed. To turn tail and retreat from Ukraine right now would not be the end of it. At least, neither Ukraine nor its arms supplier, the United States, seems to be implying that that would be the end of it. No, it would be a sign of weakness that would be exploited. Again, I’m not suggesting any moral justifications on the part of Russia, but simply from a pragmatic viewpoint it seems Russia has only one realistic choice, and that is to continue on what it is doing. Not merely continue what it has been doing but escalating the violence whenever Ukraine shows that it is willing to do the same. If the assassination of Darya Dugina and the attack on the Kerch Bridge are not signs that Ukraine is willing to escalate what is deemed acceptable in this war, then the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines most definitely is (I don’t think Ukraine is responsible for this, but I do believe it falls under the category of escalating the current conflict). As violent and unacceptable as wars are, they are usually fought within some sort of rules of engagement. Even the Nazis did not use chemical weapons on the battlefield. The more we can keep some ground rules in war, the greater chance we have of ending rather than escalating them.

So the choice given by Kiev and the United States to Russia seems to be this: either to abjectly surrender and appeal for mercy to those in charge of the defense of Ukraine (The U.S. and NATO), or continue to kill Ukrainians and up the attacks on critical infrastructure each time Ukraine demonstrates its belief that critical infrastructure is a legitimate target. Since Putin most likely remembers that Muammar Gaddafi trusted NATO and died with a bayonet up his bum, I think I know what his choice will be.

It’s not surprising that the U.S. is willing to let Ukrainians die rather than work towards a negotiated peace: Afghanistan is but the most egregious example of how the U.S. is willing to sacrifice an entire nation for its geo-strategic aims. Once upon a time, Afghanistan was our pet project, the poor victim of a Soviet invasion we needed to provide arms to. What’s surprising is that Ukraine was never taught that chapter in history and does not see the handwriting on the wall, that the leaders in Kiev are willing to sacrifice so much of its citizenry and its infrastructure to the rather unrealistic notion that Ukraine will not only defeat Russia militarily but come out of it better than it was before.

So Russia will continue the war, and both Russians and Ukrainians will die. This will be bad both for Russians and Ukrainians, but it is a P.R. victory for the United States and a big win for U.S. arms manufacturers. Weapons created courtesy of an insanely bloated military budget can be shipped over to Ukraine and blown up, either by the Ukrainians or the Russians. This, in turn will justify spending more money on weapons to replace stock.

It seems like there should be some sort of exit strategy in mind somewhere. I don’t think the U.S. expected that would be necessary, though, so they never really thought about it. I think the plan was to collapse Russia’s economy by implementing sanctions from hell, the siege aspect of warfare to compliment the weapons. That plan didn’t work out too well. It turns out Russia could survive without pornography, violent video games, superhero movies, and McDonald’s. Also, Russia can produce its own weapons, so it didn’t need the U.S.’s number one export. The U.S. is now in a position it has not been in in a long time, where it cannot simply call all the shots without negotiating in good faith. Let’s hope there is someone in the U.S. government who still maintains some understanding of basic diplomacy. Even Henry Kissinger would be acceptable at this juncture.

As for my dog and I, I finally caved and offered her a treat to come in. In return, I demanded that she give me her paw and do a couple of other tricks for me. I may be accused of showing weakness, but it really wasn’t worth a prolonged battle of wills. One of us might have caught a cold in the standoff.