Mar 12, 2022 5 min read

How does one conflate the concepts of NATO peacekeeping and humanitarian aid into a high probability of nuclear war? Is there path to avoidance? Ready for a red pill moment?

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was created following World War II to prevent Soviet expansionism, to prevent the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe and to encourage the political integration of a fractured Europe. The 1949 North Atlantic Treaty included what is now known as Article 5 by which the new allies agreed that an armed attack on one of them shall be considered an attack on all of them. That mutual defense provision is the basis of much of the problem today.

Undeniably, Russia has invaded Ukraine and is savaging its people. The cries for help, assistance and support are heart-rending. Goodness and morality demand other nations intervene before Ukraine is obliterated. That is an emotional response, fraught with danger.

Let’s examine intervention rationally. Defense planners do this type of exercise regularly as part of preparedness planning. They run simulations to game out actions and responses to see where different responses would lead.

A simulation begins with a set of assumptions and then follows a series of probable resultant events. A series of simulations were run in 2019 involving a hypothetical Russian invasion of Ukraine. NATO gets drawn into the war unintentionally as an Article 5 response.

The simulations all assumed NATO would start with a massive advantage in conventional armament. In a conventional war, Putin would lose. They also know Putin has stated that he would use nuclear weapons if he felt mortally threatened. So the simulation question was, “Can we ever defeat Putin in an armed conflict over Ukraine and not start a nuclear war?”

The author of the study stated, “With more than 100 different participants who had different ideas about war and political allegiances, the answer is a flat-out no.” Just ponder that – if a NATO-Russian war were to start, under no scenario would it stop short of nuclear conflict.

Today, we hear two predominant proposals for intervention: the imposition of a “no-fly” zone and a U.S. embargo on buying Russian energy products (oil).

The quickest way to nuclear war is the no-fly zone. A no-fly zone would require not only combat aircraft to patrol airspace but refueling aircraft, communications planes, bases, support and so on. The probability of direct confrontation with Russia aircraft is a near certainty. If confrontation leads to combat, escalation would be rapid. The probability of ultimate nuclear war would be very high. Rationally, this should be a non-starter.

This nation has no national interest in Ukraine, certainly none worth a nuclear war, and should stay as far away as possible. That is the rational answer.

In this instance, neither the rational answer nor the emotional response may be the solution.

Assume that the goal is to end Russian aggression in Ukraine. Any action that results in direct military conflict with Russia has been shown by simulation to end in nuclear war. Economic sanctions have historically proven to be ineffective in creating policy change. Options are few. One that does exist is to starve the war.

Russia’s economy, and hence ability to fund the war, is highly dependent on the sale of gas and oil. If the revenue from those sales were to be shut down, the ability to prosecute the war would quickly come to an end.

For the U.S. to simply stop buying Russian oil, as has been proposed by President Biden, is not the answer because they would simply sell it elsewhere.

The proposal to stop buying Russian oil that President Biden made is nothing short of declaring war on the American people. It is a complete sellout to the forces of globalism and eco-fascism. It is an intentional plan to drive American gasoline prices up to $6 or $7 a gallon to bolster the myth of “clean energy” by artificially pricing fossil fuel out of the market. This nation has more than sufficient oil and natural gas to be energy independent – we were before Biden destroyed the industry. It wouldn’t take much to resume drilling and pumping and to open and build pipelines to transport energy so we never again suffer high energy costs.

The answer to helping Ukraine, stopping Russia and reviving the American economy that Biden has demolished is to make America energy independent again. In doing so, we can supply Europe and relieve their dependency on Russia at the same time. This is a much better plan for America than the Biden-Soros plan for war on the American people.

So there it is. Stop Russian aggression in Ukraine, avoid starting a nuclear war that no one will win, restore America’s energy independence, revive our economy and stop destroying the livelihoods of average Americans.

Swallow the red pill. Immediate action required. Further action required in November.

Dave Ball is chairman of the Washington County Republican Party.