As the Russo-Ukraine War trudges along with no end in sight, fear flourishes, frustration grows, and rumors proliferate. Among the most recent rumors in the “peace camp” is that NATO is planning to declare war on Russia. Insinuating that nothing can be done, the die has apparently been cast. Even were this the case, however, progressives should still consider the implications and possible responses to a scenario of this magnitude. To insist dogmatically that NATO is the imperialist aggressor, and the primary obstacle to peace, only confuses matters further. Never say never, but claiming that NATO is planning to declare war on Russia is outlandish and irresponsible. It shifts the discussion from the here and now, when a war of attrition is taking place, to the indeterminate future when a nuclear assault will supposedly take place.
Despairing over some apocalyptic decision by NATO in an unforeseeable future leads nowhere. Better to begin formulating the response to an ongoing proxy war in which the West is saying to Ukraine””let you and him fight!” Such a policy does not come cheap. The American Congress has just passed a new military budget of $84 billion, part of which will supplement the $54 billion already spent on aid for Ukraine. If anything would benefit NATO and the United States, however, then it is this ongoing war of attrition. Russia is being weakened by the day, and its mismanagement of economic and military resources has made an attack on the Baltic states ever less likely.
But the question remains: Is the Western public willing to “stay the course”? In the United States, a crucial election will take place in November 2022, and most polls show that Ukraine is not of primary interest to voters. Is President Joe Biden ready to gamble that the polls are mistaken? He knows that Americans are most concerned with rising inflation, gas prices, the soaring cost of groceries, and his domestic spending plan. England is experiencing even worse inflation, and the ouster of Prime Minister Boris Johnson makes it unlikely that any new regime will support such a drastic change in dealing with the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. As for France, its president, Emmanuel Macron, leads the moderate of left wing of the European community, which has (unsuccessfully) called for negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. Italy initially provided military support for Ukraine, but public opinion is now split over the war, and Prime Minister Mario Draghi’s coalition has collapsed. Meanwhile, Germany has been seriously impacted by the sanctions on Russian oil and gas; it would also be a mistake to underestimate its post-World War II pacifist tradition.
Members of NATO are willing to spend on Ukraine, but not put troops on the ground, or launch a s nuclear war. The only international anti-Russian initiative on the table, so far, is a global plan commitment to lower the price of oil, and thus lessen Russian revenues. From the standpoint of Russia, however, war enabled Putin to deflect attention from economic problems, rampant corruption, and mismanagement. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been used by its president to strengthen solidarity. An intense propaganda campaign has been launched by Putin that depicts Russia as the victim of imperialist aggression by NATO, blocked in its attempts to retake lost territories, and leaves him to ask “why we need this world if we do not occupy a worthy place within it?”
These words are ominous. Perhaps it is not NATO that will declare war on Russia, but Russia that will initiate a nuclear attack against Ukraine. Undertaken with conventional weapons, Russia’s invasion has been a disaster by any standard. The United States lost 54,000 soldiers in its ill-fated eight-year genocidal adventure in Vietnam whereas, in five months, Russia has already lost 15,000 of its military personnel at a minimum. Putin may not settle for victory through a slow war of attrition, especially if he believes that NATO will not engage in a nuclear counterattack and that the United States will remain content with support for Ukraine’s precision bombing, drone attacks, and fighting in the trenches. Ongoing support for Ukraine with ever more powerful weapons will produce a response in kind from Russia and thus create an escalating cycle of violence, which might make Putin think that a nuclear strike should be undertaken.
For the Western alliance to take pre-emptive action, and launch its own nuclear strike, can only prove calamitous; it would dwarf the devastation produced by the United States dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima in 1945. Neither NATO nor the United States is ready to ignite an apocalypse and begin a nuclear war with Russia. Most likely, it is Putin who will resort to nukes or biological warfare. Simply bewailing the threat of either side sparking an apocalypse, however, is moralism disguised as politics. The more pacifist critics of the war would be far better served by articulating the preconditions and necessary compromises for peace negotiations.
The International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue (www.icdd.info), which I co-direct with Eric Gozlan, has sought to develop such an agenda.* That endeavor is taking place in association with the European Center for Democracy and Development and the various non-governmental organizations participating in the National Platform for Reconciliation and Unity in Ukraine.*** Our proposals are honest attempts to engage the crisis in a realistic manner and ,hopefully, contribute to the politics of peace.
Stephen Eric Bronner is Co-Director of the International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue and Board of Governors Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political science at Rutgers University. Among his recent books is The Sovereign (Routledge).
“NATO, Apocalypse, and the Russo-Ukrainian War” in OpEdNews (8/1/2022)