President Strangelove

or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love ATACMS.

Well, our “sharp as a tack” president has certainly left us a parting gift. As with most conciliation prizes, some people are really into it, most seem ambivalent to it, and some don't see it as a prize at all but rather as an encumberment. Of course, I'm speaking about the president (or whoever’s actually in charge) green-lighting Ukraine to launch US-made missiles into Russian territory. Not only are the ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) US-made, but they also require US satellites and possibly US personnel (for target acquisition at least). Ukraine was also permitted to use the UK-supplied Shadow Storm missiles. Early this week, Ukraine reportedly launched two separate volleys of (reports on the numbers differ) ATACMS and/or Storm Shadow Missiles at facilities in the Russian regions of Bryansk and Kursk. Russia claims to have intercepted some, with the rest making it through and hitting their targets, a Russian munitions depot, and an air defense installation, the latter causing damage and possibly casualties. Russia responded first by first announcing changes to its nuclear doctrine, expanding scenarios and lowering the threshold for nuclear use, and then by launching a new intermediate-range ballistic missile at the Ukrainian city of Dnipro. The missiles were reported to carry warheads with no explosives causing limited damage. Russia described it as a successful test.

The response so far by the American media and politicians has been oddly subdued. For a country that can turn the dumbest possible things into national controversies (see Obama’s tan suit, is the dress yellow or blue, what kind of shoes should the green M&M wear), the threat of open war with a nuclear-capable adversary seems to not warrant much concern within the establishment, or randos on the internet for that matter. I’m not trying to imply we should all head underground and wait for the bombs to start dropping, but maybe a little more concern about a nuclear WWIII is reasonable. Many in the West give the impression that they believe large-scale war is no longer a concern. While the Iraq war was terrible, it pales in comparison with Vietnam, which itself pales in comparison to the World Wars. A lot of people seem to have adopted the same view that was popular after the end of WWI and before the beginning of WWII. That there would never be another war on the scale of WWI. Many modern-day pundits and pols seem to believe similarly, that no large-scale war could possibly happen today. Quite frankly, this attitude scares the bejeezus out of me.

The war in Ukraine is obviously not the first proxy war between the US and Russia(USSR) and saber rattling is always part of the deal. Saber rattling can turn into shots fired real fucking fast, and a conventional war with Russia is not particularly appealing to me either. We’re not talking about a war for influence in an Eastern Asian or Middle Eastern country, we’re talking about war on the Russian border. History has taught us what happens to countries that underestimate Russia’s willingness to fight and die for their homeland. Of course, the US didn’t learn the lessons about trying to control Afghanistan, and have repeatedly launched ground wars in Asia, so our history literacy might not be that great. We can’t underestimate how destructive a hot war with Russia would be. Forgetting the specter of nuclear annihilation for a second, a conventional war would still be devastating. The blood and treasure expended in a hypothetical NATO vs Russia war would leave the countries involved crippled for years and the global economy in ruins.

The balance of military power has shifted dramatically in the years since WWII. The US is now largely responsible for NATO’s military capabilities. In other words, there is no USSR equivalent to “liberate Berlin”. I’m sorry, but French and British tanks are not gonna roll into Moscow so the US can focus on fighting China in the Pacific. I am well aware of the massive military advantage the US has over other countries, especially in the air and at sea. I’m also aware that the US couldn’t prosecute the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without putting incredible strain on our National Guardsmen and Reservists. The draft would be absolutely necessary, and I fear we would see draft dodging at heretofore unseen levels. Chronic health conditions have also exploded in the past few decades rendering many potential draftees unfit for service, at least initially. Much of Western Europe has “deindustrialized” and the US no longer has the manufacturing capacity we once did. We are not as invincible as we like to think we are.

Now that a second has passed, let’s bring back the shadow of nuclear holocaust. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was commonly believed to keep us safe from nuclear war for decades. It’s not a great system, but we’re all still here, so it seems to have worked so far. A key part of MAD is understanding your country could be wiped out. The punditry seems to believe that’s not possible anymore. That there is no way Russia would ever launch nukes, and even if they did our missile defense and technological advantages would keep us safe. This is, of course, completely delusional. There would be no winner in a full-scale nuclear war. The massive loss of life and damage to infrastructure would be unimaginable. Not to mention the ecological damage that would render large swaths of the country uninhabitable for decades. Yeah, we’d do the same to our adversaries, but that doesn’t sound much like a victory to me.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand the pacifists fallacy. When you let your opponent know you won’t respond to force in kind, you give the bully all the cards. I certainly don’t think we should roll over. I also don’t think keeping ethnic Russians, who speak Russian and want to be part of Russia as part of Ukraine is worth risking nuclear, or conventional, war. I certainly don’t think a dick-measuring contest with Russia is a good reason for war either. It blows my mind that one of the sanest voices about the situation is Donald Trump of all people. Don’t get me wrong, Trump is to blame for much of the problems in Ukraine. His administration was the one that gave offensive weapons to Ukraine. A move Obama wisely eschewed. He was also instrumental in scuttling the Nord Stream 2 pipeline deal. His recent about-face calling for a negotiated end to the war is encouraging though. Whether he follows through once in office is another story. If there was ever an issue for the Democrats to not automatically oppose Trump on, it’s this one. Of course, neo-con congressional Republicans, who’ve never seen a war they didn’t like, are lining up to continue the escalation, along with an unsettling amount of Democrats. Somehow, avoiding nuclear war has become right-coded ( good god our country can be stunningly stupid) which requires all good #resistance Democrats to become cheerleaders for war.

War is a tool for reaching political goals. The only reasonable end to the war in Ukraine is a negotiated settlement. Both sides have essentially no path to “victory”. By continuous escalation, The West has used Ukraine and its people as a cudgel to weaken Russia. It makes me wonder what other countries’ people they’re willing to sacrifice, and how far of a leap is it for our Western leaders to sacrifice their own country’s people. How many American deaths are worth weakening Putin’s position? What’s the acceptable risk of nuclear war? 1%? 10%? Does putting a Ukrainian flag in your Twitter handle prevent radiation sickness? Does opposing Trump get you a draft deferment? Talk about proof of the educational divide, for some reason being in college can get you a deferment, and the Democrats have become the party of the “educated” class. Degrees don’t save you from nukes though. I hope our “leaders” come to that conclusion sooner rather than later. Before we’re too far down the nuclear rabbit hole to claw ourselves out.