Finally, we're talking about nuclear war

I warned about this back in February

Back when the Ukraine War started earlier this year, I warned the real danger was it could go nuclear. I said every article on the war should point that out, even though few were. For example, here and here.

Finally, people are talking about that a lot. It’s the result of Biden’s Armageddon speech earlier this month. This is excellent. Talking about getting nuked means people will be thinking about ways to avoid it. The best way would be a peace deal, such as that suggested by Elon Musk.

The Wall Street Journal today ran an article by Stanford’s Scott Sagan, “How to Keep the Ukraine Conflict From Going Nuclear “How to Keep the Ukraine Conflict From Going Nuclear: Putin’s menacing rhetoric has alarmed the West, but lessons learned 60 years ago in the Cuban Missile Crisis provide some reassurance.”

Actually, as I have pointed out, Putin only said he had nukes to use if America first used them. And unfortunately, Sagan is delusional about what’s really going on. The reality is: Russia is preparing an offensive that will bring it victory in the coming months. Its earlier offensive faltered because it didn’t have enough troops, and only partly attacked Ukraine’s infrastructure. The new strategy will be different under a general whose actual nickname is Armageddon, Sergei Surovikin.

But, again, it’s good nuclear war is being discussed. No doubt it’s the topic of conversation Inside the Beltway this weekend at the McMansions of defense contractors hosting cocktail parties. And it was as well last Thursday Night for the football game between the Chicago Bears and the beloved local team, the Washington Redsk … excuse me, Commanders.

“There’s plenty of money to be made, supplyin’ the Army with the tools of the trade,” as Country Joe warbled during another foolish war — but you can’t enjoy it if you were nuked.

That’s why Biden just authorized another $725 million to advance the war. He needs to feed the maw of the Military Industrial Complex before this thing ends in a couple of months, which it will.

SecState Blinken said the aid includes “munitions, arms and equipment from US Department of Defense inventories.” That means our military will be disarmed to arm the Ukrainians. It will take some months or years for our inventories to be replaced.

According to the CNN article linked above:

CNN previously reported Western sanctions have sharply curtailed Russia’s ability to replenish the munitions it is using in Ukraine, according to a new analysis from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, forcing Moscow to task its intelligence services with finding ways to evade restrictions and procure the critical technology and parts to sustain its war effort.

But the Economist, which is strongly anti-Russian and pro-war, just reported: “As Europe falls into recession, Russia climbs out: Real-time data show a subdued but strengthening economy.” The story:

These days Russians do not have much to boast about, so they take what they can get. Social-media trolls are posting videos, intended for European audiences, showing gas stoves left on full blast. What might cost hundreds of euros in Berlin comes to a few roubles in Moscow. The taunting is childish, but it hints at a deeper truth: the economic war between Russia and the West is at a delicate moment. While Europe teeters on the brink of recession, Russia is emerging from one.

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal, which is very pro-war, also ran an editorial, “The Pentagon’s Recruiting Woes: Fewer young people want or are able to serve, a big problem for U.S. security.”

The kids just don’t want to serve under the fools currently running the U.S. government. Who can blame them? But as I’ve said before, the best way to close this gap is not to find ways to get more recruits, but to reduce the military’s commitments, beginning with finally pulling out of Europe. NATO was designed to counter the Soviet Union and its global communist juggernaut; but the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991.

Russia, whatever it is, is not pushing an ideology on the whole world. It doesn’t want to make everybody put on performances of “Swan Lake” by Tchaikovsky. Any problems with Russian can be handled by the Europeans themselves, without the Yanks getting involved. Indeed, Europe is moribund and dying and needs a challenge. Reconstituting itself after the Americans leave could be that.

In any case, it’s time for America, as I urged earlier this year, to return to George Washington’s non-interventionist foreign policy. Here’s George again from his Farewell Address:

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

Put another way: Real patriots don’t get their country nuked.