Media generated hysterics over the war with Russia appear to be wearing off. The initial spell seems to have run its course. Remember all the stand with Ukraine slogans and the ghost of Kiev nonsense? Even as public support for World War III is waning, Congress and fake president Biden are going ahead and sending billions more to the money pit known as Ukraine. After all, kickbacks are kickbacks. In D.C., support for the Ukrainian dictator, with his vaccine passports, and outlawing political opposition, seem to not have wavered a bit. It seems, the spell is holding strong among the political class.
I have repeatedly argued that the responsible response would have been to immediately work to deescalate the situation. At this point even those that initially bought into the hype need to stop and think. Serious questions need to be considered. Is a war with Russia worth the sacrifice? What are the potential benefits and what are the potential risks?
There seems to be a genuine belief among the Neocons that they can fight a proxy war with Russia and drain their resources and eventually lead to a regime change in Russia. The problem with this theory is that it seriously neglects the 800-1000 year history of the two countries. It also discounts an obvious fact. Fighting a proxy war with a super power in its neighboring country is an extremely high risk proposition. Should the conflict ever pose a direct threat to the super power then there is a strong risk of severe escalation. The escalation of this conflict has been on going and Russia repeatedly warns the West that we are inching closer toward a nuclear conflict. Russia even felt the need to reveal that they have a Doomsday Machine in case NATO decapitates the Russian government. There is even speculation over whether a small nuclear exchange could occur without it turning into a full scale nuclear conflict. The reckless behavior at hand is unfathomable.
On the economic side we need to ask is it worth the sacrifice? Sanctions do not appear to have crippled Russia, and seem to have weekend western economies, aided supply chain disruptions, and enhanced inflation, which is already out of control. Although, whistle blowers are coming forward with evidence that attacks on the supply chain have been orchestrated domestically.
Is NATO expansion worth the risk of nuclear war? Is preventing Russia from controlling the Russian speaking eastern parts of Ukraine worth the risk of nuclear winter? Ironically, the western escalation of the conflict seems to be pushing Russia to the point where they will have no choice but to topple the Ukraine government.
We must have missed the vote on changing the course of world history and creating a potential global nuclear conflict. It would seem that the potential downside of continued escalation of the Russia Ukraine conflict, far outweigh any potential upsides. Hence, war with Russia is not worth the sacrifice.
Not so fast! This may depend on how the war is fought.
There was a time when kings and generals led their troops into battle. General Washington had horses shot out from under him and a bullet is said to have ricocheted off his buckled sword while mounted. It is well documented, that Roman general Julius Caesar, at a pivotal point in the battle of Alesia, when surrounded, mounted his horse, and led a charge that would have led to his death or victory. It led to victory, the conquest of Gaul, and the imprisonment of Vercingetorix.
It is unfair to deprive our benevolent leaders of the glory of victory in battle. Let’s renew the ancient tradition where warriors led from the front, not from behind. After all of the self righteous and combative speeches by our noble politicians, I believe we should allow them the opportunity to lead. I mean truly lead.