RUSSIA'S COLD WAR

 [ listen to the audio ] 

Are the U.S. and NATO alliance heading into a direct hot, shooting war with Russia? Most likely the answer is yes.

IS THIS A BAD THING? Yes, but overall no, in the editor's opinion. If you don't stand up to bullies now it will cost us more later than if we don't act today - for bullies always need to be confronted, sooner or later. Somewhere, sometime, someone else will be their next target until the bully is overpowered, forced to reform, and/or replaced.

It is clear, based upon Russian President Putin's track record in office since 2000, that his intent is to re-assert Russian control over countries of the former Soviet Union, whether directly through military action or indirectly through controlling who runs its governments. This includes countries in Eastern Europe (formerly a part of the Eastern 'Soviet' Bloc).

After the fall of the Soviet Union, in 1992 Ukraine had the 3rd largest number of nuclear ballistic missiles in the world, after the U.S. and Russia.  In 1994, the U.S., the U.K., and Russia gave their word to support the continued sovereignty of Ukraine as an independent nation in exchange for Ukraine giving up those nuclear weapons. Since then, the Russian government has obviously broken that agreement...

• 2010 Cyber Attack - Massive Russian Military hack that took control of the Ukrainian Power Grid.

• 2014 Crimea Attack - Russian Military Assault, Occupation, and follow-up Annexation of Ukraine's Crimea Peninsula on the Black Sea. Annexation means Russia (in their view) has legally and governmentally adopted a territory as a part of their own country. The international community of nations continues to not recognize this illegal annexation.

• 2022 Russian War with Ukraine and the follow-up Russian Annexation of 4 western Ukrainian provinces of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia. The international community of nations continues to not recognize these illegal annexations.

In the editor's opinion, it's important to either give Ukraine back their nuclear weapons, OR keep our word to help Ukraine fight for their right to exist as an independent nation. This would justly and fairly go back to a pre-1994 state of conditions to which Russia had agreed to in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Giving nuclear weapons back to Ukraine would obviously be absurd - and so, as this editor's point argues, would also not helping Ukraine defend itself - be absurd.

The U.S. and U.K. gave our word, and we need to keep it.  This may mean direct war with Russia.  Doing the right thing will always cost. Not doing the right thing will just cost us more later. In delaying or 'kicking the proverbial can down the street' thinking, it is self-defeating. If we choose not to resolve the threats we face, it only encourages more chaos and it will only cost more lives, promote more injustice, and cost the next generation more dearly to do what we should have done in the first place.

Some say We Should Not Help Ukraine...

Within any U.S. Presidential Administration there are varying factions with their own interests and missions that result in reasons pushing for and against war in key hotspot areas. One should separate their view of a faction from the issues causing war and conflict. Sometimes two opposing factions can come together in support of the same action (like supporting Ukraine). It's often a hasty but natural tendency to want to give more weight to an opposite view of one's own political adversaries without first understanding the issues at hand. For example, some conservatives promote that American should stop meddling in foreign affairs that may lead us into a war. While, on a simple level, this is a true and admirable principle - with the Ukraine War it does not apply. For better or worse, in 1994, the United States gave our word to support Ukraine's survival as an independent sovereign nation. 

Common Sense teaches that not supporting or backing our own word and promises in one situation is the first step on a slippery slope to the decline, loss of trust, and destruction in all relationships.  History teaches us that, even though we hate war, the cost of not standing up to tyrants and bullies on the global stage who are actively involved in disrupting the peace and security of their neighbors, that to ignore such tyrants does not make the problem go away - it in fact, it only tends to embolden them to continue to expand. The United States does not want to be the global police. Americans are blessed with the duty and responsibility of basic Christian morals, knowing what is right and true, knowing the difference between good and evil, and not just in knowing it, but living it.

Keeping Russia on our Radar

The main issue is that Russia's actions in Ukraine have destabilized Eastern Europe, international peace and trade which have cut or severely disrupted major energy and food supply lines from both countries to the world. Even if the war ended tomorrow, the recovery of both Ukraine, mainly, and also Russia to re-engage in international trade, to which a peaceful and prosperous world relies upon, will take at least a decade to recover to pre-war levels.

Putin's reasons for war are not as important (overall) because Putin believes he has a 'right' and a 'duty' to do so. That, in and of itself, shows by Putin's actions he chooses to interact with the world with a disregard for international law, peace, trade and prosperity for Russia, the region, and the world. This now threatens war with NATO countries (most of Europe) due, in part, to NATO alliance countries supply of military assistance to Ukraine. The situation "COULD" lead to a 'hot war' - a shooting 'conventional' war with NATO.  

On the topic of use of nuclear weapons (including an EMP) - as, I've mentioned before, I believe neither the leaders of China or Russia would use nuclear weapons - since their first priority is themselves - i.e. survival, self-preservation, and staying in power. The U.S. and western allies hold enough of a nuclear deterrent - and they we would use it if attacked first.