Holy Wars...The Punishment Due, Part 3
Ukraine, NATO, Russia, and enough nukes to end civilization (Rudi Zombek, co-author)
Note - this article is largely the product of ongoing conversations between myself and Cpt. Rudi Zombek (retired), my colleague from Colorado State University, who has extensive expertise in these matters from both his scholarly research and his military career.
IMHO, there are four levels of analysis that explain what the conflict is about (Spheres of influence, Money and Resources, Defense of Christendom, and a rejection of European values). From there I look at 5 policy options across the spectrum of potential involvement.
Immediate withdrawal of all support, leave Ukraine to it’s fate
Sue for Peace - Let Russia keep the 4 regions (Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson region, and Zaporizhzhia region) and Crimea.
Trade for Peace - Trade the 4 regions and Crimea for Kaliningrad
Go until Russia surrenders and retreats out of Ukraine
Go until Russia is destroyed
What are the various levels of conflict?
As discussed in Parts One and Two, this conflict can be viewed from a number of levels of analysis:
Spheres of Influence (Realism)
Many anti-Russians have made the case that the Russian attack on Ukraine was ‘unprovoked’, but I’d like to enter into evidence that Russia has an argument that they're the ones on defense against NATO and the EU:
Here is a good quick socialist take on the 2014 coup that replaced pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych with pro-EU President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, which was viewed as a final straw for Russia.
Russia hasn’t just been continually losing land to the EU, they’ve also been losing access to the resources that those lands produce.
Money and resources (Realism)
Ukraine has numerous mineral deposits, manufacturing capabilities, productive farmland and food production facilities, and, being one of the most corrupt nations on the planet, it provides numerous opportunities for politicians and wealthy elites from around the world to launder money and engage in all sorts of illegal and illicit activities.
Ukrainian exports, via OEC (2021):
EXPORTS
The top exports of Ukraine are Iron Ore ($6.83B), Seed Oils ($6.34B), Wheat ($5.87B), Corn ($5.86B), and Semi-Finished Iron ($4.08B), exporting mostly to China ($8.09B), Poland ($5B), Turkey ($4.12B), Russia ($3.61B), and Italy ($3.36B).
Other goods (via Brittanica):
Iron ore, manganese, bituminous and anthracite coal, brown coal, titanium ore, bauxite, nepheline (a source of soda), alunite (a source of potash), mercury (cinnabar, or mercuric sulfide) ores, ozokerite (a natural paraffin wax), potassium salt deposits, rock salt, phosphorites, natural sulfur, natural gas, petroleum
Land for gas pipelines between the Middle East and Europe.
Food production (from Deutsche Welle):
Ukraine accounts for 10% of the world wheat market, 15% of the corn market, and 13% of the barley market. With more than 50% of world trade, it is also the main player on the sunflower oil market.
Ranked in first and second place respectively, corn and wheat are also the world's most widely grown cereals. A major exporter like Ukraine dropping out can have serious consequences for global food security.
Defense of Christendom (Divine Command Theory)
Putin’s pro-Orthodox Christianity and antipathy towards Western values regarding family values and LGBTQIA+ is well documented, in both proposed legislation targeting the LGBTQIA+ community and in his interviews where he openly speaks about the West having turned its back on Christianity.
This anti-LGBTQIA+ sentiment is common around the globe, and there is resentment in places like Africa over US foreign aid and sanctions being conditional on promoting LGBTQIA+ rights and programs. Going back to what I discussed in Part Two of this series, this pits decolonization against the expansion of liberal rights to the LGBTQIA+ community.
Is Western aid being conditional on adoption of pro-LGBTQIA+ laws a vital protection for a vulnerable community (especially when African laws call for the death penalty for homosexuals), or is it a form of Western cultural imperialism?
It’s a good debate, but for practical purposes Russia is all-in on exploiting the conflict to bring in other nation states into its sphere of influence.
This is part of a larger, global
Rejection of Western values
This break between Western elites in Europe and the United States and more traditional cultures around the world, especially in former European colonies, has been targeted as a weakness by Russia and exploited via the Wagner Group.
On a similar, but weirder note, this alliance between more traditional cultures across ethnic and religious lines has also created a bizarre alliance with Western LGBTQIA+ advocates and Islamicists (i.e., Queers for Palestine), which I’ll diver more deeply into in Part 4: Israel vs. Hamas.
Five Options for the West
Immediate withdrawal of all support, leave Ukraine to it’s fate.
Pros - Ends the Russia-Ukraine war without nuclear exchange
Cons - Encourages Russia, China, and others to increase aggression against NATO members and US allies.
This is the “When the cat’s away, the mice will play”, slippery slope scenario.
We know Russia is eyeing the territory that was formerly in its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, and people smarter than me think that China is eyeballing 2024 or 2025 for a campaign to retake Taiwan, and then possibly move East and South through the Pacific for Japan, the Phillipines, and Australia.
Nuclear and nuclear-aspiring nations have been waiting for the end of American and European global dominance. Iran has major beef with Israel and Saudi Arabia, North Korea would love to conquer South Korea, and Pakistan and India have never actually not been at war with each other.
A whole host of non-nuclear nations around the globe have longstanding conflicts with nearby neighbors and internal enemies and political opponents, and these nations have been constraining their behavior because of the US and international forces for a long time, waiting for the right moment to make their move.
Sue for Peace - Let Russia keep the 4 regions (Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson region, and Zaporizhzhia region) and Crimea.
Pros - Ends the war without nuclear exchange.
Cons - As in Option 1, a clean Russian win encourages Russia and other powers (China, Iran, N. Korea, etc.) to test the waters for their own geopolitical ambitions.
The four regions voted in referendums to join Russia via annexation, but Western nations have rejected the legitimacy of those elections.
During the last year Russia seems to have secured as Ukraine’s counter-offensive seems to be a failure, and with the US and NATO changing their focus to Israel vs. Hamas, this could be how the war actually closes out.
Here is a fantastic, interactive map of the current state of the conflict.
Trade for Peace (Crimea and the 4 territories for Kaliningrad)
Pros - Ends the war without nuclear exchange, allows both sides to save face, takes away a future point of conflict.
Cons - While not the complete loss that Options 1 and 2 are, this would still be a win for Russia, which encourages other players to make moves.
Putin believes that NATO and the USA staged a coup in Ukraine in 2014 to set up Zelensky as a Western puppet, taking Ukraine out of Russia’s sphere of influence. Beyond the food and mineral resources in Ukraine, what he especially couldn’t afford to lose is the port at Sevastopol in Crimea.
So NATO/Ukraine/EU could trade Crimea and the Ukrainian territories for Kaliningrad, which has the added benefit of defusing future Russia-NATO hostilities.
Go until Russia surrenders and retreats out of Ukraine
Pros - Reaffirms Western, American, and European hegemony. As a show of force, it could defer or delay other nations pursuing their geopolitical goals.
Cons - For all of the money and loss of life, the tide has not turned and the Ukrainian counter-offensive seems to be a failure. How much more money, soldiers, and weaponry can throw at Russia, while not being also engaged in Israel/Palestine, it would still be an open question of whether it would be enough, especially given how entrenched Russia has become in the territories.
The biggest risk is that Russia might deploy a tactical nuke if they start losing. Here is a Reuters article on Russia’s nuclear policy.
To prepare a TNW strike, it is likely that Putin would consult with senior allies from the Russian Security Council before ordering, via the general staff, that a warhead be joined with a delivery vehicle and prepared for a potential launch order.
These steps could be picked up by Western intelligence, as would unusual Russian troop movements away from any potential target in Ukraine or change to Russia's nuclear posture.
"I think Putin would signal and would want us to see that he was moving towards nuclear weapons because he would like to get whatever he wants for free," said Jeffrey Lewis, an arms control expert at The Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey.
"If you are going to use a nuclear weapon to send a very costly signal, the first thing you do is say: ‘You know what I am going to do, right?’. And then you might get what you are asking for and if you don’t then you go through with it."
Because Putin could not predict the U.S. response, Russia's entire nuclear posture would change: submarines would go to sea, missile forces would be put on full alert and strategic bombers would be visible at bases, ready for immediate takeoff.
Then, at his leisure, Putin could use his nuclear briefcase to give, or not to give, a launch order.
"You can imagine that Putin might want to have a slow process so that Ukraine and West would sweat as they watched the preparations," said Hans Kristensen, director of the nuclear information project at the Federation of American Scientists.
In order to keep this possibility at the forefront of Western military leaders’ minds, Russia has recently showed its teeth and moved nukes into Belarus.
Go until Russia is destroyed
Pros - We would destroy a geopolitical foe once and for all.
Cons - They would almost certainly launch all their nukes before they surrendered. Here is an excellent 2020 article on Russian nuclear policy by Cynthia Roberts.
This is my own personal thought, but the idea that Putin is going to let himself be arrested, or let Russia lose without taking out the West with him, or killed, is not something that I see as all that likely. He’s not some tinpot, backwoods dictator. He’s a cold-blooded realist who would absolutely rather nuke than lose, and given his track record of killing anyone in his way, whether it be poisoning them or just having them thrown out of a window, he shouldn’t be underestimated or taken lightly.
Thank you for reading. Israel vs. Palestine/Hamas is next in Part Four. Foreign affairs and military policy are not my strongest areas, so (as always) if you have anything that you’d like me to add to improve this article, I always appreciate feedback.
 |
|