A Non-Nuclear NATO–Russia War Would Still Be Disastrous
Americans have little direct experience with conflict on U.S. soil.
NATO partisans in both Europe and the United States remain determined to continue the alliance’s proxy war against Russia, despite growing risks that the confrontation currently playing out in Ukraine could spiral out of control. Even as some Western officials warn that the Kremlin is planning a war against NATO, most implicitly assume that the alliance’s military superiority will ultimately deter Vladimir Putin’s government from launching a full-scale attack. NATO leaders appear confident that the alliance can deter Moscow from attacking its members’ territory directly, despite the continued provision of military assistance to Ukraine.
Thus far, the principal worry of Western hawks has been the Kremlin’s low-intensity hostile initiatives—hard-to-prove “hybrid” or “gray zone” actions by Moscow. Cyberattacks, incursions by aircraft and drones, and episodes of infrastructure sabotage are becoming more frequent and worrisome. Still, pro-NATO analyses hold that major Russian military actions are unlikely as long as the democratic West remains vigilant and united to repel Russian aggression. However, the story goes, insufficient Western (especially U.S.) support for Ukraine and insufficient demonstrations of determined hostility toward Moscow will weaken that deterrence.
Such arrogance is unwarranted. Moscow’s anger and frustration is rising, as indicated by the mounting number of incidents in the gray zone category in recent months. Yet policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic appear to have given little thought to the likely consequences of even a sustained, limited war in their countries. The ugly reality is that the impact would be highly disruptive at best—and catastrophic at worst.
To the extent that experts examine the issue at all, they usually focus on the least likely scenario: a full-scale nuclear war between Russia and NATO. Analysts then typically dismiss that nightmare scenario by emphasizing that the doctrine of mutually assured destruction worked during the Cold War and will continue to work in our own era, since the same logic of deterrence still applies.
But what if Russian or NATO leaders conclude that it’s possible to wage a limited war without either side resorting to the thermonuclear option? Military planners on both sides apparently have run simulations of limited-war scenarios. They don’t believe that such a conflict is so horrid as to be unthinkable. Independent analysts also contend that Western publics should no longer ignore the possibility of world war. Concerned citizens in all relevant countries, including the United States, need to ponder these possibilities.
Except for immigrants from war-torn foreign countries, the vast majority of people residing today in America or Europe have no experience with, or concept of, the scale of destruction that even a limited, non-nuclear war between NATO and Russia would create. Television viewers around the world on 9/11 did receive a glimpse of the probable nightmare. But the direct effects of that attack were confined to three sites, and there were fewer than 3,000 fatalities. To be sure, air travel was shut down for days, shipments of goods by trucks and railroads were disrupted, and the attack inflicted a severe psychological shock on the nation and the world. Nevertheless, life largely returned to normal within weeks.
The outcome would almost certainly be far worse if a major NATO–Russia war erupted. Americans should contemplate the probable societal impact if a near-9/11-scale military incident took place in the West and Russia every month or so. In war zones around the world, such destruction (or even worse) is the norm. Are American or European civilians prepared to confront the prospect, much less absorb the actual impact, of such blows?
In a NATO–Russia conventional war, the kind of destruction, chaos, and bloodshed seen in the Ukraine War the past few years could become part of the normal experience of Americans and Europeans. Except for isolated incidents, Americans haven’t experienced the direct, horrid effects of warfare on civilians since the end of the Civil War in 1865. A NATO war against Russia would bring that exceptionally long period to an end.
The U.S. has waged numerous wars against foreign adversaries throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. But in all those conflicts, the American homeland has remained immune to any serious attack, except for Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Americans even remained distant from the world wars of the 20th century. And the third-tier adversaries we have fought more recently—North Korea, North Vietnam, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Iran—have all lacked the capability to launch a major attack on the U.S., much less sustain a long-term offensive on American soil.
Russia, however, has the military wherewithal to do exactly that, and NATO’s growing involvement in Ukraine’s attacks on targets inside Russia may give Moscow sufficient incentives to respond in kind. The European members of the alliance, especially the Baltic states, are especially vulnerable, but even NATO’s larger, more significant European players are not immune from retaliation. Nor is the United States, especially as the two sides traveled up the escalation ladder.
The American people need to ask themselves if continuing to use Ukraine to wage a proxy war against Russia is worth risking the safety and well-being of the U.S. homeland—and thus the lives of their own loved ones. Given the array of ominous developments in recent months, that danger is no longer a purely hypothetical concern.
The post A Non-Nuclear NATO–Russia War Would Still Be Disastrous appeared first on The American Conservative.