World War III Before Christmas?

The New York Post notes that "Even Democrats want Harris-Biden to end their cowardice and remove Ukraine’s handcuffs." I laughed a bit at the "Even..." part since, historically, Democrat controlled administrations (e.g., Wilson, FDR, Kennedy/Johnson) are far more eager to get us involved in major conflicts than Republicans.

    Apparently upset that they haven't yet gotten the U.S. embroiled in a world war, "[o]n Wednesday, Democratic Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Ben Cardin declared the 'time has come' for easing Harris-Biden restrictions on Kyiv’s use of US weapons, given 'Vladimir Putin’s relentless attacks on Ukrainian civilians.'" But the editorial board also mentions that "[a] bipartisan House group issued similar calls: 'Unless these restrictions are lifted, Ukraine will continue to struggle to achieve victory' and Ukrainians will 'suffer unnecessary death, loss and hardship,' they said." 

    Not to sound harsh, but so what? Do you think that Ukrainian president Zelenskyy cares if he gets the U.S. dragged into a world war--perhaps a nuclear conflict resulting in tens of millions dead--so long as it helps him or his country? As Charles de Gaulle noted, "Countries don't have friends, only interests." 

    The hot issue right now is that Ukraine wants to be able to use Western supplied missiles against targets deep inside Russia. Ukraine's interest in using U.S. or U.K. supplied long range missiles is apparent: "Ukraine sees the ability to use long-range missiles behind enemy lines as a game-changer," reports ABC News, "allowing it to target air bases, supply depots, and communication centers hundreds of kilometers (miles) over the border." 

    It argues that this would help reduce Russia’s air superiority and weaken supply lines needed to launch daily airstrikes against Ukraine – with drones, missiles, and powerful glide bombs – and to sustain its military ground offensive into Ukraine. 

    With winter likely to slow that advance, long-range air strike capabilities will become a higher priority. Kyiv wants to go back on the offensive to offset military manpower shortages 2½ years into the war and to protect its badly-damaged power infrastructure. 

It's debatable how effective the missiles would be since, as the BBC notes:

    ... Kyiv has been asking to use long-range Western missiles inside Russia for so long now that Moscow has already taken precautions for the eventuality of the restrictions being lifted.

    It has moved bombers, missiles and some of the infrastructure that maintains them further back, away from the border with Ukraine and beyond the range of [the Anglo-French] Storm Shadow [missiles].

    But what overwhelming interest does the United States have in Ukraine that is worth the risk of a nuclear war? 

    I don't buy the excuse that it is needed to curb Russian expansionism. Even if you accept that Russia is interested in expansion, the fact of the matter is that Russia can barely wage a war against Ukraine on its very borders. What makes anyone think it could wage a successful war against NATO? 

    And arguments that it helps strengthen us against China are ludicrous. It's like arguing that pumping up your front tire will keep the back from going flat. China's role both as a consumer of Russian exports and in supplying goods and materials to Russia is not weakening China, but strengthening it--especially in its influence over Russia. 

    So what is the U.S. or NATO interest in Ukraine? That our politicians' corruption and bribery not be exposed? That secret biolabs not be revealed? That our "strategic thinkers" not be revealed as empty suits? That certain corporations see record profits selling weapons? What compelling interest do we have in continually upping the ante?

    And lest you think that there will be no consequences, Russian president Putin raises a good point about when a proxy war ceases to be a proxy war and become a direct conflict. As CNN reports:

    Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned NATO alliance leaders that a move to lift restrictions on Ukraine’s use of longer-range Western missiles to strike deep inside his country would be considered an act of war.

    “This will mean that NATO countries – the United States and European countries – are at war with Russia. And if this is the case, then, bearing in mind the change in the essence of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions in response to the threats that will be posed to us,” Putin told reporters on Thursday. 

And, pulling from a lengthier quote in a Vox Day piece:

    “There is an attempt to substitute concepts. Because we are not talking about allowing or prohibiting the Kiev regime to strike at Russian territory. It is already striking with the help of unmanned aerial vehicles and other means. But when it comes to using high–precision long-range Western-made weapons, it’s a completely different story. The fact is that, as I have already said, and any experts will confirm this (both here and in the West), the Ukrainian army is not able to strike with modern high-precision long-range systems of Western production. It can’t do that. This is possible only with the use of satellite data, which Ukraine does not have — this is data only from satellites of either the European Union or the United States, in general, from NATO satellites. This is the first one.

    “The second, and very important, perhaps key, is that flight missions to these missile systems can, in fact, only be carried out by military personnel of NATO countries. Ukrainian servicemen cannot do this. And therefore, it is not a question of allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not to allow it. It’s about deciding whether NATO countries are directly involved in a military conflict or not. If this decision is made, it will mean nothing more than the direct participation of NATO countries, the United States, and European countries in the war in Ukraine. This is their direct involvement.

    “And this, of course, significantly changes the very essence, the very nature of the conflict. This will mean that NATO countries, the United States, and European countries are at war with Russia. And if this is the case, then, bearing in mind the change in the very essence of this conflict, we will make appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be created to us.”

    Those bleating about supporting Ukraine have no winning strategy.  Rather, the strategy at this point seems to be to keep Ukraine supplied with enough war materials (and cash to line the pockets of its oligarchs) to be a constant thorn in the side of Russia. And that would work if we were discussing fairly equally matched countries. But even with Western support, Ukraine lacks the resources--manpower, manufacturing--to maintain a stalemate, let alone defeat Russia. Rather, its resources are declining. The result is that in order to even maintain a stalemate, the West must continually enlarge and expand the aid it provides. 

    But, as Putin is warning, that expansion of aid and assistance will at some point cross a threshold where it is no longer a proxy war. Perhaps it will be enough that the West will be providing the weapons, manning the weapons, and targeting the weapons, as Putin alleges. Perhaps it will not come until a missile strikes a civilian target, whether by mistake or otherwise, and the Russian people (and Putin's rivals) scream for blood. 

    So what do you think? Will we see World War III before Christmas?