US Person has avoided posting about Putin's war in Ukraine because the CCM is all over it, everyday. But some of the comments coming from on-air "experts" are mind-boggling bonkers. Advocates for a "no-fly" zone insist that that it would be effective in stopping the Russian's inevitable advance [see map]. Such a move requires enforcement, obviously. Who would be responsible for enforcing the embargo? It wouuld be, equally obvious, NATO. To think that enforcement would not bring Russian and western pilots into direct conflict is simply dangerous naivety. It is equally naive to think that Russia would not retaliate if one of its aircraft were shot down by NATO air forces operating in a war zone.
Putin has already warned that any interference in his "special operation" by the West risks nuclear retaliation. Do these war-mongering pundits really want a nuclear confrontation in the middle of Europe? A one hundred kiloton device could wipe out a small city. Yes, there are mounting civilian casualties in Ukraine, but a nuclear blast would make those figures negligible by comparison. Ukraine is not strategically important to the West, nor is it a member of the western military alliance. Therefore, risking nuclear war with Russia is
out of bounds. The Russian military attack on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station--
a war crime--is a message to the West that Putin is playing for keeps. Note that the containment buildings and spent fuel rod storage pools were not hit. Apparently part of the Russian invasion strategy is to capture and control power plants, with the axis of advance along the west Bank of the Dnieper River that will split the country in two.
 |
| dark squares indicate nuclear power plants |
Here is the other thing about nuclear war: once it starts, it is nearly impossible to stop as warring sides ratchet retaliation with increasing force. If you really want to crimp Putin's war capacity without killing millions of innocents, embargo Russian oil and gas imports. Yes, this will hurt western economies, but so would smoldering, radioactive ruins. This measure has political support in Washington. Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters she would support banning Russian oil imports. Granted Russian oil does not make up a large part of the American market (7%), but if the boycott were joined by other western countries, especially in Europe where Russian imports are significant, it would cause Russian oligarchs to reconsider Putin's revanchist adventure in Ukraine. Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, and a leading advocate of climate change strategies, also backs an oil embargo. “We cannot criticize Europe for its reliance on Russian energy as we pour dirty oil money into Russia,” he said. Some Republicans and reactionary Democrats back the proposal because it would mean an opportunity for more domestic production. Either way, no one would die from not being able to fill up their gas tank. So far the Biden administration has resisted using oil as a weapon agianst the aggressor petrostate.