One year after the Ukraine war: the progress of the nuclear track and the expansion of the scope of the war

The first anniversary of the war in Ukraine came with an American view imbued with pessimism, accompanied by harsher and darker visions among its European allies for their future. Americans, whose numbers are increasing near the Russian borders.

The intended pessimism about the prospects for the next stage was clarified by the American “Atlantic” publication, which is close to the leadership of NATO, as a result of an extensive referendum it conducted among the American intellectual and political elites, which included “senior historians, political science specialists, experts in geopolitical developments, and former officials,” in preparation for the war’s entry into its second year. In it, they unanimously agreed on the bleakness of the foreseeable future and the preparation for a long-term war that “may last a decade or more” (The Atlantic, February 23, 2023).

The renewed debate, or rather the struggle of the elites, over the US strategy at the current stage comes against the background of the decline in the previous options available to decision-makers in a greater openness to the international communities, followed by continuous defeats in the adventures of the US wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Somalia, not to mention the stumbling in the negotiations of the Iranian nuclear file. And the rise of those among them who call that the world today “no longer accepts American dictates” and the internal transformations it produced that favor less strict approaches in international relations.

It is clear that this intellectual “conflict” between the American elites, between the two currents of extremism and openness, did not last long with the outbreak of the Ukrainian war. Soon, most of the members of the team calling for lessons from American war adventures abroad joined the general line in support of the new “adventure” in Ukraine, with some important exceptions, led by Professor of Economics and Public Policy at Columbia University Jeffrey Sachs, and Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago John Mearsheimer, and University Professor of History Andrew Bacevich…

He records Professor Jeffrey Sachs directly accusing the US government of blowing up the Russian gas pipeline to Germany, and “possibly involving Poland”. And he continued in his constant criticism of Washington’s directions that his views “go against the compass of the official narrative, and one should not utter such accusations in the West in general, but the correspondents of major American newspapers, with whom I communicated, confirmed the responsibility of the United States for the bombing, but their objective reports are absent from the media coverage.” (Interview with Bloomberg Network, February 22, 2023).

In the opposite part of the shifts of the American elites regarding the continued support of Ukraine, some protests can be recorded within the leaders of the right-wing movement in the two parties, and more strictly within the Republican Party, whose leaders express their concern about “the decline in the priorities of the American agenda in the face of the tendency of military escalation against Russia” (Institute “Quincy Liberal,” February 28, 2023.

Among the most prominent monitored “protests” are efforts led by Senator from the Republican Party, the libertarian conservative movement, Rand Paul, who was able to “disrupt” the parliament’s approval of the disbursement of an “aid package for Ukraine” (for a while), amounting to 40 billion dollars, in the month of May. May last year, he was joined by 10 members of the same party.

Paul justified his objection to the huge package as “a threat to our national security.” It was debated in the Senate against the backdrop of a shortage of infant formula and its availability in the US market.

One of the most prominent political analysts in Eastern European affairs, Dalibor Rohak, who belongs to the neoconservative team, described the phenomenon of “the beginning of the crack” in the cohesion of the Republican Party leadership, as “the splitting of the Republican Party against the backdrop of US foreign policy trends was evident to everyone” since then. It was embodied in Congress’ vote to “help” Ukraine with “$113 billion” last year.

Tracking the harbingers of the disintegration of the Republican Party currents provided a unique opportunity, and perhaps unprecedented, for those interested in stopping at real differences regarding determining the order of priorities that should be addressed in the current era, as well as in the medium term. Some well-known figures are opposed from an “ideological” position as a first motivator, such as Rand Paul, and then the opposition crystallizes against the backdrop of multiple political visions (Quincy Institute, Washington, February 23, 2023).

Here, it is worth noting once again the audacity of some of the party’s representatives in both houses of Congress in confronting the “hard-line” traditional trend, as it is called, especially by a group of representatives supporting former President Donald Trump and recording some tangible successes.

It is not permissible to overlook the importance of the sharp political debate during the election of the Speaker of the House of Representatives for the Republican Party, Kevin McCarthy, and the harsh concessions he made to win the support of that limited group, and the upcoming confrontations that may accompany it between currents of the ruling establishment when introducing “new aid packages for Ukraine.” To vote, and the concessions that these senior leaders may have to make to a minority that has proven its presence and political weight greater than its numerical size.

In addition, an intellectual “change” has been observed in the orientation of one of the most prominent centers of the intellectual political right in recent times, represented by the “Haritage” Foundation, which laid out the features of future directions, calling for “not presenting an open check” to Ukraine, and warning against the tendency of decision-makers in both parties. to “marginalizing America’s interests” in favor of Ukraine (press release, Heritage Foundation, May 10, 2022).

It should also be noted that there has been a decline in the enthusiasm of the general popular mood to provide continuous support to Ukraine, which is matched by the exposure of the wear and tear of the infrastructure to withstand “almost normal” accidents, such as train collisions and the emission of toxic gases resulting from the recent incident in East Palestine, Ohio, which killed Livestock and drinking water were contaminated, with health authorities warning of the spread of multiple cancers among the residents of the region.

Coinciding with the first anniversary of the war in Ukraine, US President Joe Biden made a “surprise” visit to Kiev, in the context of Washington’s consistent strategy of “a strategic defeat of Russia”. To prepare (plan) for the collapse of Russia” (Foreign Policy, January 7, 2023).

Biden’s trip was hastily arranged, and was outside the context of communication and the usual media sequence, and it is “the first time in modern history that an American president has visited an area of ​​armed conflict outside the coverage of US military protection,” which prompted some major media outlets to describe it as “infiltration from Washington to Kiev under cover of darkness without anyone noticing” (MSN website, ABC television network, Military Times website, February 20, 2023).

An urgent visit “made by prior arrangement with the Russian authorities”, in order to ensure the safety of the president’s person, according to successively leaked reports, aimed at “embodying the West’s commitment” to support Ukraine, in light of “the evaporation of Western aid promises at the Munich Security Conference” (bulletin) Defense News, February 23, 2023).

The promised financial and military aid to Ukraine collided with a solid wall of uncertainty within the corridors of the Munich conference, especially among “multinational national security teams, and journalists as well,” according to the “Defense One” publication, despite a televised speech by US Vice President Kamala Harris, who declared In it, her country pledged to “support Ukraine no matter how long it takes.”

Those calling for an accurate definition of US policy on Ukraine increased, especially from respected military leaders and prominent political elites, including the US Chief of Staff, Mark Milley. In general, they referred to a state of military stalemate accompanied by rapid field advances by Russian forces, which necessitates the West to confront directly the renewed realities.

The military publication “Defense One” said, on behalf of the attendees of the Munich Security Conference, that the leaders of the various countries “must address the public about the consensus of visions for the current stage and the reality of continuous attrition facing Ukraine. The West has no choice but to enter the battle directly against Russia, starting from Ukraine.” And the provision of advanced weapons and equipment, supported by the various air forces, for that mission.

She went on to warn NATO leaders of the state of “hesitation in taking the appropriate decision that will result in prolonging the war and increasing its victims,” ​​and expressed the conviction of the military and intelligence community in the defeat of Ukraine, despite the reassurance of the Chief of Staff, Mark Milley, his peers to start a comprehensive offensive in the spring. next.

The former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, David Petraeus, addressed a letter of distress to the West to move immediately to adopt “training of aircrews on F-16S fighters,” as evidence of his and others’ conclusion that “the war will not end by next summer.”

The publication concluded that this visual scenario “will serve exclusively President Putin, who can end the war” in line with his stated goals.

Military affairs experts do not hide the dimensions of the US rhetorical and military escalation, and say that one of its goals is to lure Russia into using a nuclear weapon of low radioactive capacity in the ongoing battle, and the consequent direct intervention of Washington and its allies to strike more strikes inside Russian territory.

At this dangerous juncture, Russia announced the freezing of its commitment to the nuclear arms control agreement with the United States, while Washington expressed its disappointment with the Russian decision, declaring its willingness to negotiate again in this regard.

Predicting whether or not nuclear weapons will enter the Ukrainian war is not an easy issue, and its elements are not available, with the exception of the escalatory rhetoric from Washington politically and militarily, which takes Ukraine and Polish lands as a launching pad to perpetuate the war, but one can conclude that all of humanity is on the verge of a nuclear arms race. It is devoid of the previous controls and restrictions, accompanied by the supremacy of the war team in American decision-making and control over the future of the whole world.