Neoconservatism is a political doctrine that asserts, among other things, that there will never again be a foreign power similar to the former Soviet Union that could challenge US dominance.
The potential use of nuclear weapons during Russia’s special military operation has become a common topic in Western media. It is assumed that, out of desperation or particularly predatory inclinations, Russia would decide to use tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) and immediately lose the support of the entire civilized world.
However, some experts express the opinion, that Russia itself will not take this step, which is advantageous only for the West. Washington, specifically the neocons, who declared that after the Cold War victory, no one in the world would ever dare to even approach threatening the United States again, would force Russia to do this.
Rossa Primavera News Agency presents a translation of an article from the German magazine Telepolis, written by American economist, Oxford and Yale graduate Dr. Thomas I. Palley. In his article, Thomas I. Palley asserts that the potential use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine could be provoked by the West, pursuing its long-term strategic interests.
The Hiroshima Moment for Ukraine Approaches
The war in Ukraine creates the risk of Russia using nuclear weapons. Neoconservatives in the USA and NATO could provoke escalation.
In August 1945, the U.S. bombed the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons. Since then, nuclear weapons have not been used in any conflict. This could soon change: the Hiroshima moment for Ukraine is approaching.
The situation in Ukraine increasingly provides Russia with military and geopolitical reasons to use tactical nuclear weapons. Although Russia would be the one to use them, the USA and NATO are deeply involved in the conflict.
They are in the grip of a neoconservative delusion that dismisses the potentially catastrophic consequences and blocks any settlement.
Lessons from Hiroshima and Nagasaki
The history of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is one way to understand the present. These attacks had both military and geopolitical motives. The first is widely accepted, the second is not.
According to mainstream historiography, Japan was de facto defeated in August 1945 and ready for conditional surrender. However, the USA wanted unconditional surrender. It also calculated that conquering Japan could cost a million American lives. Therefore, the US elite decided to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki to achieve unconditional surrender without such losses.
The geopolitical motivation was the Soviet Union. The day after the attack on Hiroshima, Moscow declared war on Japan. The USA feared that the USSR could conquer the easily defensible north of Japan.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented this by abruptly ending the war. They also sent a horrible message to the Soviet Union, demonstrating US military power.
Parallel with Ukraine
The war in Ukraine now follows a logic reminiscent of 1945. The military parallel is evident. Russia wants to end the war on acceptable terms. Even after conquering Donbass, it will continue to face long-range weapon attacks using missiles provided by the USA and irs NATO partners.
The loss of Russian lives and the damage caused are unacceptable. Tactical nuclear weapons can surgically end the conflict and force Ukraine to accept its outcome or face further destruction.
The geopolitical parallel is also evident. In 1945, the USA sent a message to the Soviet Union. In Ukraine, tactical nuclear weapons would signal to the USA that continuing the strategy of gradual escalation of the conflict carries the risk of full-scale nuclear war.
Neoconservative Insanity
Neoconservatism is a political doctrine that asserts, among other things, that there will never again be a foreign power similar to the former Soviet Union that could challenge US dominance.
The doctrine gives the US the right to impose its will anywhere in the world, which explains the US intervention in Ukraine long before the Russian invasion in 2022. Initially, this doctrine prevailed among hardline Republicans, but it has since been adopted by Democrats and is now a political hegemony.
The neoconservative project has been waging a piecemeal war against Russia since the late 1990s, based on a strategy of “escalation dominance.” The first step was integrating Central European countries into NATO, followed by the integration of the former Baltic Soviet republics.
After that, the USA began to stir anti-Russian sentiment in the former republics of Georgia and Ukraine. The long-term goal is the disintegration of Russia, as stated by US national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski in the 1990s.
Escalation in Ukraine
A similar strategy of escalation has characterized US and NATO involvement in Ukraine. For a decade before the war, Ukraine was the largest recipient of US military aid in Europe, and NATO members stalled the implementation of the Minsk Agreements.
Subsequently, commitments were intensified, turning aid into a proxy war and then an undeclared direct conflict with Russia.
The timeline includes sabotaging peace negotiations in early 2022; supplying Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, Javelin anti-tank missiles, and artillery; Patriot air defense systems; deploying MiG-29 aircraft from former Warsaw Pact countries; providing extremely long-range artillery, modern infantry fighting vehicles, and tanks; supplying long-range missile systems like HIMARS, as well as long-range missiles like ATACMS and Storm Shadow; and providing upgraded F-16 aircraft.
Alongside, the US provided satellite intelligence while covert advisors supported long-range missile strikes deep into Russia, including attacks on the Kerch Bridge, Russian naval ships at sea, naval yards in Crimea and Novorossiysk, Russia’s high-altitude AWACS system, and an attack on Russia’s missile defense system.
The strategy of gradual escalation aims to tighten the noose more and more, with each tightening allegedly small enough to deny Russia a reason to resort to the nuclear option. However, such a strategy risks missing the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Ending the War, Stopping the Escalation, and Restoring Deterrence
It can be instructive to walk in each other’s shoes. Russia pursues three goals. First and foremost, it wants to end the war on acceptable terms. Secondly, it wants to weaken the US strategy of gradual escalation. Thirdly, it wants to restore trust in its nuclear deterrence capabilities, which have been undermined by escalation, blurring red lines that should not be crossed.
Using tactical nuclear weapons becomes increasingly reasonable as it can achieve all three goals. The great paradox is that deterrence is aimed at preventing nuclear war, but restoring deterrence may require the use of nuclear weapons to demonstrate the willingness to do so.
Many neoconservatives casually talk about “Putin’s nuclear bluff.” In reality, the US threat of nuclear retaliation is a bluff. No sane US politician or general would risk starting a thermonuclear war over Ukraine.
A Grim Forecast
There is still time to freeze the sequence. The problem is that peace is not welcome. Ukraine’s deficient democracy is suspended, extremists from Azov (organization banned in Russia) are in power, and any Ukrainian speaking against the war risks imprisonment or worse.
In the USA, neoconservatives are at the helm, and the public is fed a Manichaean narrative portraying the West as good and Russia as evil. This false narrative grows stronger, making compromises politically and ethically more difficult.
The forecast is bleak. Ironically, what may prevent a Hiroshima moment is Russia’s success on the battlefield.
Dr. Thomas I. Palley is an economist from Washington, D.C. He holds a bachelor’s degree from Oxford University, a degree in international relations, and a Ph.D. in economics from Yale University.
He has been published in numerous academic journals and has written for The Atlantic Monthly, American Prospect, and The Nation.
Dr. Thomas I. Palley was previously the chief economist of the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Before joining the Commission, he was the director of the Globalization Reform Project at the Open Society Institute, and before that, the deputy director for public policy at the AFL-CIO.
Source: Rossa Primavera News Agency
