West's concessions can be only effective way to peace

APD NEWS

text

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine keeps dragging on with no end in sight, unless the United States stops pushing the conflict. The potential for nuclear war is escalating and that could cause catastrophic consequences to our world. Meanwhile, ordinary people do worry about such a dreadful outcome. However, the possibility of World War III from breaking out in Europe could still be averted if Washington takes a dramatic shift and moves in to support sincere peace over the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Unfortunately, the U.S. refuses to play a mediator's role behind the scenes. So imagine what Russian President Vladimir Putin might do if the U.S.-led coalition against Russia were to move closer and the conflict were to turn decisively in Kyiv's favor. In this case, the possibility of nuclear war would rise sharply.

John Mearsheimer, a prominent American scholar of international relations, agrees that the root cause of the crisis in Ukraine is the U.S.-led actions that have made Kyiv a bulwark for the West on Russia's border. He pointed out that continued escalations have an impact on the global order and could lead to a nuclear confrontation. Yet in the eyes of U.S. politicians, they only see it as a win-or-lose strategy and lack wisdom to pursue true peace. America's paranoid diplomatic philosophy has led today's world into an abyss from which it may not escape from.

A number of Russian strategists argue that the use of nuclear bombs to deter adversaries could be a rational proposition, which could turn the tide in a war where NATO's conventional superiority might have given the alliance a victory. This is the case despite a sweeping defense reform program launched in 2008 that restored Russia's conventional forces and reduced the role of tactical nuclear weapons.

A debate has emerged around the so-called "escalation to de-escalation doctrine," under which the Kremlin might use tactical nuclear weapons to achieve a quick and stunning victory. Hence, sub-strategic nuclear weapons have played a changing role in the Russian military doctrine. In the 1990s and early 2000s, these capabilities were central to Russia's shaping of its military posture, as Moscow is compensating for structural deficiencies in its conventional forces.

In short, nuclear weapons play a crucial role in another Russian military strategy, namely the first and preventive use of nuclear weapons. Nonetheless on August 26, Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of the Russian Federation Security Council, said in an interview that Moscow will only use nuclear weapons under four conditions — Nuclear missiles (to attack Russia and/or its Allies) have been launched; The use of nuclear weapons against (Russia and/or its Allies); Strikes on key facilities to control nuclear weapons; And other acts that threaten the Russian state's existence.

If Moscow was to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine and Washington retaliates with a nuclear response that would lead to total destruction of the territories of the two great powers. Both tit-for-tat and disproportionate retaliation options pose daunting dangers. Therefore, a direct war between the major powers, especially among nuclear ones, will lead to a terrible outcome if at any level the risks escalate to mass destruction.

In this way, if you want the conflict in Russia and Ukraine to end as soon as possible, a NATO military response has to be accompanied by supporting a settlement and the terms for a truce, including the offering of concessions to Russia on the basis of mutual respect in order to spark the the right conditions for the future of Russia-Ukraine peace talks.

(CGTN)