Why the West MUST Win

When Peter I published his first genocidal order to eliminate the Ukrainian language in 1720 it set forth a series of events that is culminating now. Catherine II in 1762 received the rebuke of the Hetmanate rejecting Russian rule over Ukraine, sparking the next military invasion based upon the hurt snowflake feelings of a Russian tsar. This was the history of Russia and Ukraine — Russia says “I am your ruler.”, Ukraine says, “No, thanks.” and Russia replies “I will beat you until you love me.” It’s not a coincidence that “Бьет, значит любит.” is a common expression in Russia. (If he beats you, it means he loves you. Regarding domestic violence, which is legalized in Russia.)

The invasion in 2014 and the escalation in 2022 are the culmination and the end of this abusive relationship, because never before has Ukraine had allies outside of itself to turn back the Russian abuse.

What could have been a quiet domestic incident between an abuser and a captive became a public conflict not because the captive screamed too loudly, but because the abuser boasted too loudly.

Putin went on an on about how this was a New World Order, how he was going to dismantle the post-war system and lead the world into a multi-polar future where dictators no longer had to even pretend to be civilized.

Putin got his talking heads to keep bringing up nuclear weapons so often that eventually it backfired. Not only did the rational world tire of his constant “Did you forget I have nukes?” but he eventually got the West to consider the implications of his victory, and realize that Russia winning isn’t an option. Not because of anything Russia might do (Russia is inconsequential), but because of what will happen afterwards in the rest of the world.

His “referendums” only increased the pressure on democratic societies, because if there is one thing that democracies hate it’s an election that is obviously fraudulent. If Putin had gotten like 55% support in the occupied territories, that might have been believable. Fifty-five is still fifty points higher than the actual level, and that 5% was only his own armed forces, and only half of those! But at least it would have been believable to the West, they could have swallowed it. But 92%? 97%? Nobody could buy that. It was absurd.

His boasting about Russia’s military prowess before and after the invasion also backfired. He thought he was scaring everyone, but to those familiar with bravaccio it was a lure to hard to resist. He was the stolen valor in a VFW bragging about being SEALs when he was kicked out during Boot. He was the 45 year old many bragging about the touchdown he made at the high school game. There is just something wonderful about watching people like that fail, and we decided we had to make it happen. Second Army in the World my arse. Third Army in Ukraine, maybe. After ZSU, the Foreign Legion, and grandmas with sunflower seeds.

The annexation itself. Putin should have never pretended that those areas were going to be part of Russia — that should have been left for a much later date after everyone stopped caring so much. Changing national borders is bad enough, doing it with fake elections and a brutal invasion is much worse. THAT is what a red line looks like, Putin.

There were probably other mistakes as well, maybe you all can help me remember them by commenting?

The point is that Putin had what could have been another stage in a localized conflict between neighbors and he brought it out into the town square by all his rhetoric and self-aggrandizement.

So now the West is forced into acting. Had Putin not told everyone that Russia’s victory would mean the fall of Europe and America, then Europe and America might have let it happen. Had Putin not constantly had his media and sycophants mention nukes every other day, the world might have forgotten about proliferation for long enough to allow for Russian victory. But Putin didn’t, and now he’s lost. He’s coming around Go, collecting his $200, but his opponent owns all the properties, with hotels.

Let’s look at the nuclear question. (again)

We’ve all heard about how Putin is going to start WW3 if we cross one of his ‘red lines’, dozens of which we’ve already crossed. HIMARS was a red line. Western aid of any form was a red line. Taking Kherson was a red line. Kharkiv was a red line. Oil price cap was a red line. Nordstream was a red line. Theoretically entertaining the concept of an idea that eventually some day in the distant future Ukraine might be potentially considered for a tentative membership at some level in an organization like NATO was a red line. Ukrainians speaking Ukrainian was a red line. So many red lines in front and behind us. So, so many. Nobody told Putin that you only get one red line. After you use that excuse once and don’t follow up, nobody cares.

The problem with the nuclear question is what happens after. Sure, sure, Putin has nukes and constantly threatens to use them, but what is the probability that he will actually use them? It’s the same as the probability of seeing a herd of wild elephants in New York City — 50/50. Either he will, or he won’t. But what happens after?

Strategic Nukes

Let’s pretend he goes all out and destroys the world. We can’t stop him, but we can join him. My advice — be in a major city or on a military base, better to go quickly.

But what was the alternative? Had we succumbed to his “red line” threats even once then that red line would have moved in the other direction. The first one was … well, nobody remembers. Let’s just pick one at random. “Ukraine must not join NATO.” Okay. First of all, we had already accepted that — Ukraine was not on a realistic path to join NATO to begin with. But let’s say we agreed to it openly, and stated matter-of-factly that “Ukraine is in Russia’s sphere of influence for now and forever, amen.” Russia goes home happy and proud, wagging its tail and saying “See how much they respect me?” to the third world. And what happens?

Well, everyone sees that if you want to be respected on the world stage you have to have nukes. With nukes you can go to the West and demand anything you want and they will agree. Want the West to ignore the sovereignty of a neighbor? Just threaten nukes. Want the West to give you billions in aid to fund your secret police force? Just threaten nukes. The solution to all problems faced by every country becomes nukes.

But wait, there’s more!

Russia goes home and sits on its laurels for a while, but then it gets bored. In this way Russia is rather child-like, rather Trump-like. It wants to be the center of attention. They got their puppet installed in Kyiv, but what about Tbilisi? So they do it again. And again, the West backs down, and again Russia takes its bone and proudly struts around for a while. Until it gets bored again. Eventually acquiescing to Russia’s demands becomes second nature. Everyone speaks loudly for a week or two and then gives in, and Russia can do whatever it wants.

At some point the ask is too much. At some point Russia is going to demand something that somebody is not willing to give. It might be a lucrative gas and oil deal with the EU, making Russia the sole supplier. It might be the Baltic states returned to the fold of the Russian empire. It might be disarmament guarantees. More than likely it will be something to do with climate change which is about to wreck havoc on everything we do everywhere, and we will have no choice but to back down, it will be second nature by then.

So, no. Backing down in the face of nuclear threats is not an option. Yes, it’s risky. Yes, it sucks. Yes, it’s terrible. But the consequences of allowing countries to make nuclear backed threats is a path to guaranteed nuclear war and unstoppable proliferation.

Tactical Nukes

Let’s say he does use limited battlefield nukes and NATO responds weakly and meekly like the peaceniks want. First, this breaks the convention that nukes are not to be used offensively. Yes, yes, Russia will say it was defensive, that those territories are now Russia, but nobody believes that and it’s just empty words. Not even China and India buy into that silliness. This puts tactical nukes on the table for other militaries as well, and tactical nukes are a lot easier to develop than strategic nukes are. Strategic nukes require ballistic missiles, which aren’t easy, but tactical nukes require cruise missiles or just aircraft, which everyone has. Now Pakistan and India are at each other throats, North Korea is reconsidering its position in the world.

But wait! There’s more!

The United States has promised to defend a rather ridiculous number of countries around the world formally, and there is something of an expectation that they will do so informally. We call it the “Evil American Post-WW2 Hegemonic Imperial Police State NATO Controls the World” (EAPWHIPSNCW, eep-whip-sun-cow) in various Twitter circles, or just United Nations for short.

We promised Ukraine we would guarantee their territorial integrity if they gave up their nukes. They did. Now their territorial integrity is threatened, and we have to responsd. Why? Becuase we also promised the same to Taiwan, and all the NATO countries, and Japan, and South Korea, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, and countless other friends, partners and allies all over the world, big and small, who have reigned in their war budgets and not pursued full nuclearization. Why? Because they were told “America has your back.” You don’t need to make nukes because we will protect you from X, whoever X is. For some it’s North Korea, for others it was Iraq, now it’s Iran (with Russian support), or someone else. The message was, “You don’t need nukes.”

So if Ukraine falls all those promises evaporate into steam, and all of a sudden a whole lot of countries are going to need nuclear weapons to deter the aggression of their Russian funded neighbors.

And, let’s be clear here, the opposite is also true. Plenty of countries out there that the USA doesn’t get along with who are going to take a second look at nukesnow that territorial integrity isn’t being respected anymore and colonialism is back on the table.

So, by taking decisive action in Ukraine the West is sending a message that isn’t just about the evil hegemony that the anti-NATO crowd harp on about. We are sending the message that:

No, you don’t need nukes to be safe.

No, you can’t invade your neighbors.

Yes, the West will keep its promises. Eventually.