Have We Sleepwalked into World War III?

There are no good options. What to do?

Russians and Ukrainians agree: We are now in a World War.

High level officials on both sides of the Ukrainian war have now warned that we are embroiled in World War III. No one in government wants to admit it, but we are in a position where we have only a choice of bad options. They may not like it, but that is the real world we are in. Leaders must deal with this real world by formulating and implementing a strategy that has a viable and acceptable end state. In the last world war that end state was the total defeat of Germany and Japan and their unconditional surrender. The end state of the present war in Ukraine, however, is more likely to be found somewhere along the spectrum of a negotiated settlement. How to find and implement that end state is the enormous task that Biden is dumping in Trump’s lap. Recent escalations by both sides punctuate the need to address this crisis before the war metastasizes further.

The Russian view

I recently read the Russian perspective on this in a European publication, which led with this (my translation, original article available here):

Russian President, Vladimir Putin, opined on Thursday that the conflict in Ukraine has taken on a “global character” not excluding strikes against the countries that have furnished Kiev the weapons recently utilized against Russian territory, which he said was ready for all scenarios. Vladimir Putin also confirmed that after a non-nuclear strike on the city of Dnipro on Thursday, his forces had hit Ukraine with a new type of intermediate range hypersonic missile.¹

The Ukrainian view

Ukrainians agree with the ‘world war’ characterization, albeit for different reasons. Ukraine’s former military Commander-in-Chief, Valery Zaluzhny, who is now the Ukranian ambassador to the United Kingdom, recently said, “I believe that in 2024 we can absolutely believe that the Third World War has begun.” His conclusion was based upon, among other things, North Korea’s dispatch of troops to join the fighting, Iran’s supply of drones that are “killing civilians absolutely openly, without any shame,” and Russia’s use of weapons obtained from Communist China and North Korea.

Let’s not debate definitions — We are in a World War.

Some military and national security experts whom I greatly respect, have argued to me that we are not yet in a “world war” because it is not yet an “existential threat,” within the scope of World War I or II. I respectfully disagree, but the point here is not to debate a definition of “World War.” Many Ukrainians might dispute that this is not an existential war for them. Some Russians might also disagree, based upon Biden’s proclamation that one of his war aims was regime change in Russia: “For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power.” Others may not like the use of the phrase “world war,” because it highlights the risks we are now facing — it’s too scary.

The label is immaterial. Whether you call it a “world war,” or “a very big step toward the beginning of the third world war,” or a “Big Rock Candy Mountain,” the label matters little. Whatever label the politicians choose, the blunt facts are that the major nuclear powers of the world, from across three continents, are on opposite sides of the bloodiest European war since 1945. When one major power has invaded a country that is supported by other major powers, when those supporting major powers are providing sophisticated weapons systems to the belligerents, when the opposing major powers have expressed their willingness to go to war against the other side, when Putin has lost so many Russians that he is relying upon North Koreans and Shanghaied Yemeni Houthis as cannon fodder, when an escalated conflict has the real and perhaps imminent potential to involve every continent and every ocean on the globe, every navigable seaway, and all of the skies from the troposphere to the exosphere, including space-based satellites and weapons systems, and when well-grounded risks of biological warfare threaten every continent, every country, and every human being on earth, I would say that qualifies as a “world war.”

Whatever label you put on it, the fact remains that we are in the midst of extraordinarily dangerous times. The facts and existential risks identified above demand serious and sober leadership. There is scant room for error. We must demand that our leaders provide that at every turn. No stops, no detours.

The conflict and U.S. involvement escalate. Any resolution will be a Herculean Task.

So here we are, on the threshold of entering the third year of the current phase of this war. Although there is plenty of fault to go around, we are in a close-to-untenable situation of our own making. These limited observations illustrate the dilemma we face.

Many of us believe that this is a war that should never have happened, which was invited by Biden’s weakness when he signaled that a Russian invasion might be OK as long as it wasn’t too big:

I think what you're going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades. And it depends on what it does. It's one thing if it's a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do.

Despite White House efforts to “walk back” Biden’s comments, Putin was emboldened by this display of weakness as well as Biden’s feckless leadership in the precipitous collapse of our Afghanistan effort. So, he invaded. But Putin may have bitten off more than he could chew — his plans for a quick victory quickly became mired in muddy fields and muddled planning. But even if the thing was mishandled by Biden and the U.S., we are faced with the reality that another Russian despot has invaded a sovereign country and is widely regarded as having further expansionist ambitions. The lessons of Munich in 1938 teach us that to appease such aggression is to invite more of the same. Or, as Rudyard Kipling, put it, “Once you have paid him the Dane-geld, You never get rid of the Dane.”

Minding the lessons of Munich (in part), we have given Ukraine half a loaf — enough money and weapons to stave off defeat and to keep the war going, but enough not to win it. Because neither side can accept defeat, the escalations continue, with each side hoping somehow to gain a decisive victory or at least a significant edge. As a result, whether because of a lack of national leadership and misplaced priorities or just apathy and discontent by us voters, many in the U.S. have grown weary of supporting the war. They do have a point. Americans understandably question why we are spending billions of dollars to protect Ukraine’s borders when we are suffering through a government-sponsored invasion across our own. Others reasonably ask whether, given the size of the ever-increasing federal deficit and its impact on our economy, we can afford to continue shoveling billions to Ukraine and depleting our own stockpiles of ammunition and equipment to supply a country with which we have no mutual defense treaty. These are reasonable concerns, yet they remain unaddressed by the current administration.

The ostensible catalyst for Putin’s recent warning about a global war was Biden’s escalation when he authorized Ukraine’s use of the U.S. Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) to strike targets deep within Russian territory. The ATACMS have a range of about 190 miles. That is comparable to hostile Mexican drug cartels being armed with missiles that could strike from inside Mexico and hit cities from Los Angeles and San Diego to Phoenix, San Antonio and Austin. How would we react? Hint: In 1962 when Khruschev sought to put missiles in Cuba, 90 miles off our southern coast, the U.S. instituted a blockade of Cuba and came close to nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

The Biden-Harris administration, on the other hand, believes that it is Russia that has escalated because it recently made the first-ever combat use of a hypersonic ballistic missile, even if the first shot of that missile did relatively little damage.

This entire situation, combined with the threats of even a possible nuclear escalation, come at a particularly fraught time for the U.S. We are in a time gap when Biden has been repudiated and is almost universally, regarded as being incapable of providing real leadership, but when Trump will not assume power for almost two more months. Our adversaries and enemies might well conclude that we are at a time of maximum weakness and vulnerability.

A modest proposal

As President, Biden is free to chart any course he selects without the slightest regard for the thoughts or wishes of his incoming successor. Trump, on the other hand, currently has zero constitutional power to make or even advise about foreign policy. Biden, therefore, is totally justified, both by history and by law, in continuing to chart his course without the slightest input from Trump. I respectfully submit that, while legal and consistent with past precedent, this would be a foolish course of action, given the stakes involved for the country and the world.

The last election and all available polling data show that a majority of the country does not have confidence in the Biden-Harris administration’s ability to resolve the matter. Trump touts that when he is President he can negotiate with his “friend” Putin and end the war quickly. Who knows if he is right? Or if he was just “puffing,” as he sometimes does.

So, should we just float along for the next two months and hope that more escalations do not worsen the situation, and that Trump can make good on his braggadocio? Maybe he can but some think that Biden’s recent escalation by authorizing the use of ATACMS deep inside Russia will just worsen the situation and make Trump’s job harder after he is sworn in. Some even think that is intentional. If so, then delay will make any resolution more difficult. The risks identified above grow every day.

This is not a time for business as usual. We are in uncharted waters. This is not a situation where all the outgoing President needs to do is exercise his routine political prerogatives, even on controversial partisan issues. Biden’s mental limitations, the World War nature of the situation, and the potential for a catastrophic result in the event of unwise decisions, is too great for engaging in the luxury of a lackadaisical business-as-usual approach.

Biden must think outside the box. Even with the lack of historical precedent, he should appoint Trump as his “special emissary” to attempt to bring the warring parties together to negotiate a resolution to the war. Tough job? Of course. Controversial? You better believe it. And, after assuring the country that Trump was a “fascist,” can Biden possibly promote Trump as someone who might be able to resolve an issue that has stymied him for three years? Even if he did, could he then cloak Trump with sufficient authority to get results? That’s a Gordian knot that may defy unravelling.

Biden should cut the knot with a bold stroke. But I have my doubts that he can or will. Prove me wrong, Mr. President.

1. Pour les francophones:

Le président russe Vladimir Poutine a estimé jeudi que le conflit en Ukraine a pris un "caractère mondial", n’excluant pas de frapper les pays qui ont fourni à Kiev des armes utilisées récemment contre le territoire de la Russie, qui est "prête à tous" les scénarios selon lui. Vladimir Poutine a également confirmé que ses forces ont frappé jeudi l’Ukraine avec un nouveau type de missile hypersonique à moyenne portée, après un tir sur la ville de Dnipro qui ne portait pas de charge nucléaire.