Ironically, in the past, during the heights or depths of the Cold War – however you may wish to describe those crisis points in the history of U.S.-Soviet relations – it was obvious when we were closest to nuclear war. In October 1962 when that confrontation focused on missiles in Cuba that could annihilate American cities within minutes, it was fearfully evident that the world was on the brink of catastrophe and that life on earth could be over, at least as we knew life on earth.
Fortunately, President John F. Kennedy was not only a man in charge of the presidency – unlike the automaton who currently occupies the White House – he was someone who could think outside of the box – a horrible cliche, I know, but just too apropos to disregard – and find compromise with a country and a political system he had always vowed to aggressively resist. He found a way out and if you talk to people who lived through that time, they will tell you that it was like the world exhaled a collective sigh of relief because the grave danger had passed.
During the detente years of President Richard Nixon, it was equally obvious to America and the world that the danger of nuclear war had receded; that it was increasingly unlikely that either side would rush for the nuclear button without first making a phone call to assess whether the current situation was actually something warranting a nuclear response or just a disagreement that could be resolved by diplomats, not generals.
During the years of President Ronald Reagan – my personal favorite – a million people gathered in Central Park to demand the abolition of nuclear weapons. They had no idea that Reagan – the ultimate Cold Warrior – would become Reagan the man who forged both peace with the Soviet Union and a personal friendship with its most reasonable leader Mikhail Gorbachev.
So as NATO continues to agitate for war with Russia, where are the millions protesting the potential nuclear war on the horizon? As France, Britain, Sweden and Norway talk about raising armies to fight Russia and directly assist Ukraine in its ongoing war, where are the saner heads who should be arguing that we cannot go to war over Ukraine because it will result in the Third World War and nuclear obliteration?
But as we sleepwalk closer to Armageddon, it is anything but obvious to anyone in NATO or the Biden administration that we are on the brink of human extinction.
This is all some wonderful game of poker that will surely work out if we merely call Russian President Vladimir Putin’s bluff. But he isn’t bluffing. Ukraine cannot join NATO any more than Mexico could have joined the Warsaw Pact in 1956.
Do you remember the Warsaw Pact? That was the Soviet alliance of its east bloc satellite countries that Gorbachev dissolved when the Soviet Union collapsed. It expected the West to do the same with NATO and then-U.S. Secretary of State James Baker promised that if NATO did persist past the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the grand alliance would not move “one inch” eastward.
By the way, this was a promise made not just by Baker and the U.S. but by every major European leader of the time. If this interests you, I would flag Tucker Carlson’s most recent interview with Columbia University Prof. Jeffrey Sachs.
But of course NATO did expand eastward, under both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. It continued to gobble up all of eastern Europe and is now suggesting Ukraine — once a part of the Soviet Union and still clearly in Russia’s current sphere of influence — can merrily join an alliance that has ceased to have a rational or comprehensible military objective, except to sign up as many member states as possible and thereby escalating the chances of a NATO, which successfully contained the Soviet threat for 42 years, has become a club of fools and literal bomb shelter.
A personal note at this time. I was a senior military officer in the Canadian Air Force who served with NATO in Bosnia under U.S. command. I wrote the talking points for NATO operations in the Balkans and strongly believed every word. I supported every American war and intervention. I wasn’t old enough to have an opinion on Vietnam but I would have supported that too. I applauded the invasion of Iraq and passionately believed in the mission in Afghanistan.
But we all have wake-up calls and mine came when the Military Industrial Complex began insisting that we support Ukraine until the end. The fighting in Ukraine did not start with Russia’s invasion in 2022 but has been ongoing for a decade now. I don’t think sending hundreds of billions of dollars to Ukraine is a “good value for money” (as former U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron had the gall to call it) because only Ukrainians are dying in this war. If this war continues much longer, there won’t be a single Ukrainian of military age alive or still extant in the country.
It dawned on me that perhaps perpetual war and the maintenance of 750 U.S. bases around the world might not be the best foreign policy: it might not even make a kernel of sense. I felt like it was August 1914 and I was watching the European leaders of that faraway era line up their armies for destruction and prepare their royal houses and empires for the dustbin of history.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenkskyy could well be preparing his exile, laden with some of the treasure the U.S. and other NATO allies have provided him and other venal politicians in this absolutely corrupt country posing as a democracy. Western intervention appears to be the only way to stave off defeat – even if that means a nuclear war with Russia.
But NATO isn’t facing some guerrilla forces or Third-World army in Russia. It is the most powerful military force on the globe with at least 6,000 nuclear warheads at its disposal. So how do we extricate ourselves from this sordid mess? The solution may be simple but it might also prove to be beyond the hugely limited capabilities of the Biden administration and NATO’s febrile leadership. It will be well beyond the calculations and desires of the armaments manufacturers who reap grotesque profits from the human carnage of war.
President Joe Biden, during a rare moment of clarity, needs to pick up the phone and speak with Putin – something he hasn’t done since the beginning of this conflict. If Tucker Carlson can sit down with the Russian leader, so can Biden. They need to talk about peace, about ending the war and about outrageous American demands that Ukraine join NATO.
NATO needs to stay where it is. It should be disbanded because its time has passed and it only maintains life because it has become a vested interest populated by well-paid military and civilian executives who cannot imagine a world without this anachronistic military alliance.
We need to recapture the hope and vision of 1991 after the fall of the Soviet Union and the potential to make Russia a member of the world community. Unfortunately, too many State Department bureaucrats – the ones labeled as “neocons” today – saw the implosion of the Soviet Union as an opportunity for America to not be just the solitary superpower but one that ceaselessly expands its influence and territory around the world.
For the sake of saving a Ukraine that can still be independent but neutral, America and NATO must rethink their military objectives. For the sake of saving the world from a nuclear cataclysm, we must realize that Ukraine cannot be just another country in a U.S. sphere of influence that has gone wildly out of control.
While Biden has fretted about Ukraine’s borders, America has no southern border. How can America even contemplate ruling the world when it cannot even secure its own sovereignty? It is time to focus on America first and find peace and friendship with a non-communist Russia that isn’t trying to install missiles in Cuba, Mexico or Canada the way the U.S. has installed them in Poland. We cannot wait for former President Donald Trump to return to power and demand a reality check from the Deep State. We need action now and to obtain success, there has to be an admission of failure from a Biden administration that has come to epitomize lost opportunity.
But where there’s a will, there’s a way: especially if that way leads to the survival of the world as we know it. .
