“ Once war is forced upon us, there is no substitute than to apply every obtainable means to bring it to a swift end. War’s very item is victory — not really prolonged indecision. ”
So said Gen. Douglas MacArthur in his April 1951 address in order to Congress after being fired by President Harry Truman as commander in chief in the Korean War.
And what is now America’s goal with our massive infusion into the Ukraine war of recent and heavier NATO weaponry?
Said Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on his return from a Sunday conference in Kyiv with Leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy:
The United States wants “ to see Russia weakened to the point where it can’t do things like invade Ukraine. ”
“ Russia, ” said Austin, has “ already lost a lot of army capability and a lot of its soldiers … and we want to see all of them not have the capability to rapidly reproduce that capability. ”
Thus, the brand new, or newly revealed, objective of U. S. plan in Ukraine is not just the defeat and retreat of the invading Russian army but the crippling of Russia being a world power.
The sanctions imposed upon Russia and the advanced weaponry we are shipping into Ukraine are not only to enable the country to preserve its independence and territorial integrity but also to instill irreversible damage on Mom Russia.
Putin’s Russia is not to recover shortly or ever from the beating we intend to administer, making use of Ukrainians to deliver the defeating, over an extended period of time.
Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu has observed through to the true objectives associated with some NATO allies:
“ There are nations within NATO that want the Ukraine war to continue. They see the continuation of the battle as weakening Russia. They will not care much about the situation in Ukraine. ”
But to increase steadily and substantially the loss to Russia’s economy, in addition to its military, the war must go on longer.
And a long battle translates into ever-greater losses to the Ukrainians who are alone in paying the price in bloodstream of defeating Russia.
Is Austin devoted to fighting this war to the last Ukrainian?
How many dead Russian soldiers — currently, the estimation of Russian losses can be 15, 000 of its invasion force — will it take to satisfy Austin and the Us citizens?
To achieve, state, a loss of 50, 1000 dead Russians, how many Ukrainians would have to lose their life as well? How many Ukrainian towns would have to share the destiny of Mariupol?
Clearly, the Joe Biden-Lloyd strategy of indefinitely bleeding Russia contradicts MacArthur’s dictum: “ War’s very item is victory — not really prolonged indecision. ”
Does a battle to bleed the other side to death also contradict the moral conditions for a simply war?
Then there are the practical considerations.
When we say we will so weaken The ussr that it cannot threaten its neighbors again, we are speaking about conventional weapons and energy.
Nothing done in Ukraine in this two-month battle has diminished the Ruskies arsenal of 6, 000 nuclear weapons, the planet’s largest stockpile.
And the more we kill Russian conventional power, the more we force Moscow to fall back onto its ace in the hole — nuclear weaponry.
Asked Tuesday about the risk of a nuclear war emanating from the discord, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov replied.
“ The risks now are usually considerable. I would not want to raise those risks artificially. Many would like that. The danger is definitely serious, real. And we must not underestimate it. ”
Putin put it this way:
“ Anybody sets out to intervene in the current events from the outside and creates unacceptable threats for us that are strategic in nature, they should know that our response is going to be lightning-fast …
“ We have all the tools with this that no one else may boast of having. … We’ll use them if needed. And am want everyone to know that. ”
Tactical nuclear warheads aboard hypersonic missiles would seem to fit precisely what Putin was describing.
Which raises the question:
Will Putin take a U. S. -induced permanent reduction in Russia’s standing as a great nation? Or would Russia resort to weapons that could avoid that fate and avoid as well the particular long and debilitating “ forever war” some People in america want to impose on his nation?
If we are going to bleed Russia into a good irreversible strategic decline, is definitely Putin a ruler from the mindset to go quietly straight into that good night?
Are Putin & Co. bluffing with this implied nuclear threat?
When Georgia invaded South Ossetia in 2008, Putin’s Russian army reacted instantly, ran the Georgians out plus stormed into Georgia alone.
When the U. S. helped to destruction the pro-Russian government within Kyiv in 2014, Russian federation plunged in and got Crimea, the Sevastopol naval base, and Luhansk and Donetsk.
When Ukraine flirted with joining NATO and Biden refused to rule out the possibility, Putin invaded in February.
When he alerts of military action, Putin has some credibility.
And in this talk of making use of tactical atomic weapons to avoid the defeat, humiliation and diminution of Russia alone, is Vladimir Putin bluffing?