World War III Will Be the Most Likely
Consequence
By Paul Craig Roberts
September 12, 2022:
Information Clearing House
--I hate to hear “I told
you so” and here I am using those words.
As readers know, I have been concerned for
many years that Russia’s toleration of endless
insults and provocations would continue to
encourage more and worst provocations until red
lines are crossed that result in direct conflict
between the two major nuclear powers. All these
years the Kremlin, unable to understand, or to
accept, that its role as Washington’s enemy #1
was set in stone, relied on a strategy of zero
to minimal responses in order to undercut the
image of a dangerous and aggressive Russia set
on restoring the Soviet Empire.
This diplomatic strategy, like Russia’s
Ukraine strategy, has completely failed.
The Kremlin’s disastrous Ukraine strategy
began when the Kremlin paid more attention to
the Sochi Olympics than it did to Washington’s
overthrow of the Ukraine government. The
Kremlin’s mistakes were put on an accelerating
path when the Kremlin refused the Donbass’
request to be reunited with Russia like the
former Russian province of Crimea. This left the
Donbass Russians, formerly a part of Russia, to
suffer persecution by Ukraine’s Nazi militias,
shelling of civilian areas, and partial
occupation by Ukrainian forces from 2014 until
February, 2022 when the Russian Army began
clearing Donbass of Ukrainian forces in order to
prevent a prepared Ukrainian invasion of the
Donbass republics. Having waited 8 years to act,
the Kremlin now faced a large, western trained
and equipped army plus fanatical Nazi regiments.
Get Our Free Newsletter
One would have thought that by this time the
Kremlin would have learned from its
extraordinary mistakes and realized that,
finally, it needed to demonstrate that it was
provoked. Without any question, what was called
for was a Russian attack that closed down
Ukraine, destroying the government, all civilian
infrastructure and ending the conflict
immediately. Instead, the Kremlin compounded its
mistakes. It announced a limited intervention,
the purpose of which was to clear Ukrainian
forces out of Donbass. It left the government
and civilian infrastructure of its enemy
untouched, thereby enabling its enemy to resist
the intervention on highly favorable terms.
To be clear, there is no doubt that the
Russians can clear Donbass of Ukrainian forces
and have about completed the task. The Kremlin’s
mistake was not realizing that the West would
not permit the intervention to be limited.
The Kremlin warned the West about interfering
in the operation, declaring that if the US and
NATO got involved, Russia would regard those
countries as “combatants.” But the West got
involved, slowly and carefully at first to test
the waters and then more and more aggressively
as what the West originally expected would be at
most a week long conflict is now in its seventh
month with the Kremlin again talking about
negotiation with Zelensky and the Russian
advance apparently on hold. Far from treating
the NATO countries as combatants, the Kremlin
still provides Europe with energy to the extent
that Europe permits Russia to do so. High
Russian officials have spoken as if proving
Russia to be a reliable energy supplier is more
important than the lives of its soldiers
fighting against western trained and equipped
Ukraine forces supplied by European countries
whose armaments industries are running on
Russian energy.
I correctly predicted that Russian half
measures would result in the widening of the
war.
The correctness of my analysis has now been
confirmed by a report in The Hill, a
Washington publication read by insiders. The
report is titled: “Why the US is becoming more
brazen with its Ukraine support” and can be read
here:
https://thehill.com/policy/international/3627782-why-the-us-is-becoming-more-brazen-with-its-ukraine-support/
Here is the opening sentence of the report
and some excerpts:
“The Biden administration is arming Ukraine
with weapons that can do serious damage to
Russian forces, and, unlike early in the war,
U.S. officials don’t appear worried about
Moscow’s reaction.”
“’Over time, the administration has
recognized that they can provide larger, more
capable, longer-distance, heavier weapons to the
Ukrainians and the Russians have not reacted,’
former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor
told The Hill.
“’The Russians have kind of bluffed and
blustered, but they haven’t been provoked. And
there was concern [over this] in the
administration early on — there still is to some
degree — but the fear of provoking the Russians
has gone down,’ added Taylor, who is now with
the U.S. Institute of Peace.”
“’We were a bit more careful at first … not
knowing if Putin would find and attack supply
lines and convoys, not being sure if he would
escalate, and also not being sure if Ukraine
could use what we have [given] them or hold out
for long against Russia,’ said Michael O’Hanlon,
a military analyst at the Washington, D.C.-based
think tank Brookings Institution.”
“Since June, the U.S. has steadily been
increasing High Mobility Artillery Rocket
Systems to the country, which American service
members have trained Ukrainian troops to use in
batches.
“Looking ahead, multiple reports have
indicated that the U.S. plans to soon send
Excalibur precision-guided artillery munitions —
weapons that can travel up to 70 kilometers and
would help the Ukrainians target dug-in Russian
positions and command posts.
“Part of the shift in messaging can be
attributed to the fact Kyiv defied international
expectations and did not quickly fall when
Russia first attacked, according to Nathan
Sales, a former State Department official who
most recently served as the acting
undersecretary for civilian security, democracy
and human rights.”
As I said would be the case, the Kremlin’s
limited operation was seen in the West as a half
measure that provided the West with the
opportunity to widen the war. Now with winter
approaching the conflict is widening with
shipments of long range powerful weapons capable
of attacking Donbass, Crimea, and other parts of
Russia from western Ukraine that was spared
Russian invasion.
As I also said would be the case, by
lengthening the war with its go-slow tactics in
order to minimize civilian casualties, a noble
intent, Russia gave the West the opportunity to
characterize the Russian intervention as running
out of steam from exhausted munitions and high
Russian casualties. The picture of Russian
failure has had the effect I expected of making
the West more confident about its combatant
role. Here are excerpts from The Hill’s report
confirming that:
“Another part of the equation: Recent
intelligence that indicates Russia is feeling
the sting of Western-imposed sanctions and a
military service force that is dwindling in
power as the war wears on.
“Last month, Reuters reported that major
Russian airlines such as Aeroflot have grounded
their planes so they can be stripped for spare
parts, taking components from some of their
planes to keep others airworthy.
“And facing losses on the battlefield, Putin
last month sought to boost Russia’s combat
personnel by more than 130,000 troops by
eliminating the upper age limit for new recruits
and encouraging prisoners to join.
“U.S. officials think the effort is ‘unlikely
to succeed.’”
“Taken altogether, the intelligence paints a
picture of a country [Russia] struggling to
maintain its own institutions, much less fire
back at Western nations for aiding Ukraine.
“’I think the instincts of the people in the
departments and agencies, particularly State and
Defense and the intelligence community, I think
their instincts are to be more forward leaning
and more aggressive,’” one former senior
government official said.
“’We have a lot more space on our side, I
think, to take actions that will assist Ukraine
without being unjustifiably afraid of how Putin
is going to respond,’ they added.”
One can reason that the Kremlin made all
these mistakes because it did not want to scare
more of Europe into NATO by demonstrating its
military prowess in a lightening conquest of
Ukraine. But it is Russia’s halfway measures
that have given Finland and Sweden the
confidence to join NATO as they see no threat to
themselves from being NATO members. A
devastating Russian blow to Ukraine would have
caused all of Europe to rethink NATO membership
as no European country would want to face the
prospect of war with Russia. Instead, what the
Kremlin has produced is a British prime minister
who is prepared to engage Russia in nuclear war,
and a NATO that intends to keep the Ukrainian
conflict going.
A careless or hostile reader might conclude
from my article that I am an advocate of Russian
military success. To the contrary, I am an
advocate of minimizing the risk of nuclear war.
Steven Cohen and I are the two who from the
beginning saw how Washington’s interference in
Ukraine with the overthrow of the government
charted a course that could end in nuclear
Armageddon. Cohen was reviled by his own
liberal-left, and I was declared a “Putin
dupe/agent.”
The name calling we suffered proved our
point. The Western world is blind to the
potential consequences of its provocations of
Russia, and the Kremlin is blind to the
potential consequences of its toleration of
provocations. As we can see, neither side has
yet come to this realization. The Hill’s report
demonstrates the correctness of my analysis of
the situation and my prediction that the outcome
would be a widening of the war and a greater
likelihood of miscalculations that could result
in nuclear war.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy
and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal.
He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps
Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He
has had many university appointments. His
internet columns have attracted a worldwide
following. Roberts' latest books are
The Failure of Laissez Faire
Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West,
How America Was Lost,
and
The Neoconservative Threat to
World Order.
Click Here To Support Dr. Roberts work
Views expressed in this article are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
in this article are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
Reader financed- No
Advertising - No Government Grants -
No Algorithm - This
Is Independent
