Among the arguments of those who seem to be pushing for expanded war with the Russian Federation, one of the strangest is that Russia is a weak, third-world country and a “paper tiger.” Those who make this argument point to the protracted three-year conflict in Ukraine and scoff at the Russians’ inability to subjugate a much weaker adversary. These same voices usually ignore America’s ten-year war in Iraq and twenty-year war in Afghanistan, even though both wars cost Americans much and accomplished far fewer strategic objectives than Americans were promised.
Russia has chosen to execute a war of attrition that wears down Ukrainians’ will to fight. At the same time, it has refrained from unleashing destruction on the scale of Dresden or Hiroshima that might trigger a wider U.S.-NATO response. Three and a half years into the war, the Ukrainian people are desperate for the conflict to end. So far, the war has been primarily limited to the territories of Russia and Ukraine. From Russia’s point of view, Putin is threading the needle.
What is particularly discordant about calling Russia a “paper tiger” is that so many of the people who make this assertion simultaneously warn that Russia is preparing to conquer all of Europe. In one breath, Senator Lindsey Graham, special envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellogg, or former secretary of State Hillary Clinton describes Russia as a backward country whose nuclear capabilities pose little threat to the United States. In the next breath, these same voices argue that Russia intends to reconstruct the Soviet Union and envassal the nations of Europe. Online commenters mock the Russian bear as having no real teeth but then insist that France and Germany will soon see Russian tanks in the streets.
It is true that Russia has a smaller population than the United States or the combined countries of the European Union. With a hundred and fifty million citizens, though, it is still one of the largest nations — by population — in the world. By landmass, Russia controls nearly twice as much territory as the second largest country, Canada. For centuries, Japan, China, France, the Turkish Empire, and the United Kingdom have attempted to take parts of Russia for their own, yet Russia has endured. Even after a century of suicidal communism and post–Cold War chaos, the Russian people share a common identity that is as strong as anywhere else in the world. Russia is a nation of people who actually define themselves by their ability to endure hardship. While “woke” Westerners cry about pronouns and celebrate victimhood, most Russians are preparing for prolonged war.
Those who belittle Russia as no real threat to the superior military of the United States often dismiss its nuclear arsenal. With as many warheads as the U.S. and the capability to deploy them by air, land, and sea, Russia remains a deadly foe, regardless of its relatively low per capita GDP. Russia’s new Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile can reportedly deliver six warheads (each containing six submunitions) at speeds exceeding Mach 10. Although Western analysts have a range of views regarding the Oreshnik’s effectiveness, it is a hypersonic weapon potentially capable of reaching all of Europe without interception.
Those who do not fear the fallout of a U.S.-Russia war seem to think Russia would be foolish to use nuclear weapons because doing so would guarantee its annihilation. For those who think this way, I would pose this question: If American sovereignty were one day threatened, would we refrain from using nuclear weapons?
Such a scenario might seem unrealistic right now, but our world is rapidly reshaping into a multipolar one. India (our ally/competitor) and China (our adversary/enemy) are home to three billion citizens. Should those two countries put aside their historic differences and ally against the United States in the coming decades, the size of our military forces might be small by comparison.
Although the U.S.-controlled financial system has given America the wealth to exert power across the globe, there may come a day when that same system crashes and we find ourselves in economic straits. Whereas China and India have grown their industrial and manufacturing sectors over the last three decades, the U.S. has offshored its most critical industries. We are now reliant upon those who will one day challenge American hegemony.
It is not so difficult to imagine a time when America’s lethal military infrastructure remains the only deterrent keeping predators at bay. If America were ever pushed into a corner and its existence were at stake, would we hesitate to use the worst weapons in our arsenal to beat back those who threaten us? And if we would use them under duress, why would we expect any less from the Russian Federation?
There is an idea that has long been discussed in the august lecture halls of the West’s diplomatic houses. It concerns a desire to break Russia into a dozen separate nations. Using the same “divide and rule” tactics and strategies that have been employed since ancient times, the West would like nothing more than to foment public rebellion inside Russia. Pulling such a mission off would be the magnum opus among the West’s numerous information warfare-driven “color revolutions” this century. Dissolving Russia into a dozen states would allow the United States and the European Union to play them off each other, exploit their natural resources, and keep them geopolitically weak. Every few years, some retired head of state or diplomatic heavyweight has one too many glasses of wine and acknowledges that a post-Putin world provides the ideal opportunity to carve up all of Russia.
What would we do if our enemies were so bold as to begin carving up the lands of the United States? I suspect that many of us would fight to the death. We should expect the Russian people — who view themselves as part of a historic civilization — to do the same.
I have become less optimistic that war with Russia can be prevented — primarily because U.S., European, and Russian officials all appear to be confirming that things will get worse. Speaking from a summit in Copenhagen days ago, Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán warned that “the E.U. has decided to go to war” against Russia. Elaborating, Orbán described the situation as “serious” and said that “outright pro-war proposals” are being quickly advanced.
Meanwhile, Danish prime minister Mette Frederiksen accuses Russia of using drones, sabotage, and hybrid warfare to divide Europe and describes Russia as Europe’s “primary enemy.” European politicians are hyperventilating so much about phantom Russian drones that Munich’s airport even shut down because some people saw mysterious lights in the sky. European leaders are shoveling paranoia and hysteria to the public on an industrial scale (while “green”-energy regulations kill the rest of their industries).
Speaking at the Valdai International Discussion Club last week, Russian president Vladimir Putin said Europe’s “ruling elites … continue to whip up hysteria” and stated soberly that “all NATO countries are fighting us, and they’re no longer hiding it.” He mocked the idea that Russia had any intention of attacking NATO but assured listeners that Russia is prepared for a larger war.
Similarly, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov recently observed, “NATO and the European Union … have already declared a real war on my country and are directly participating in it.”
Finally, Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin — a man whom some call “Putin’s brain” — recently penned an essay in which he concluded that “we cannot avoid a big world war,” that “monstrous trials await mankind,” and that what’s happening “now will seem like child’s play compared to what is ahead.”
Europe wants war. Russia is ready for war. War it will be.
This article was originally published on American Thinker.
