By Stephen Smoot
About a century and a half ago, a war scare permeated the capitals of the Great Powers of Europe. France had suffered defeat by a coalition of states that after 1871 would form the German Empire. As they regained strength, by 1874 they endeavored to needle the Germans at every opportunity to show Europe – and perhaps themselves as well – that they remained relevant and even a threat.
France floated the notion that the Germans might attack them, which resulted in the discouraging response of, basically, best of luck. Exasperated, the German Imperial Chancellor Prince Otto von Bismarck had one of his country’s press outlets publish an article entitled “Is War In Sight?”
Playing a bit of a game of chicken, France pushed to raise the stakes. They persuaded other Great Powers to warn the Germans to not launch an attack on France that they had not seriously contemplated in the first place. The Great Powers after 1871 rarely dictated to Bismarck, but they did not on this occasion. France achieved an empty public victory in the form of a small humiliation of the Germans, but not much else of consequence.
Almost 150 years later, recent headlines across the United States and the world have asked the same question. In response to the deployment of 50,000 soldiers of the North Korean Army to fight for Russia in their Ukraine war, President Joe Biden (or more likely those who are actually running the government) authorized Ukraine to use American manufactured and provided missiles to hit targets in Russia.
The weapons, called Army Tactical Missile Systems or ATACMS, can travel just shy of 200 miles and carry approximately 375 pounds of munitions. They represent an older generation of such tactical weapons, replaced in the US arsenal by the Precision Strike Missile whose propulsion systems are manufactured in Mineral County near Keyser.
The Moscow Times, a Russian news publication, reports that the weapons themselves will likely matter for little in the conflict. They quoted Russian military expert Alexey Alshansky as saying that use may be limited to the Kursk area in which Ukraine captured a small piece of Russia territory, likely to try and relieve pressure on its Eastern Front.
He added ‘this is more of a gesture (that) may enhance the effectiveness against Russian logistics, creating temporary disruptions and extending the delivery cycle for ammunition and supplies to Russian troops.” The weapons “will lengthen the logistical chain” and do little to truly provide an advantage.
The political and diplomatic problems created may far outweigh the effectiveness of the weapons. Kremlin spokesman Dmitriy Peskov called it “a qualitatively new spiral of tensions and a qualitatively new situation.” he also said “it’s obvious that the outgoing administration in Washington intends to take steps . . . to continue fueling the fire and provoke a further escalation of tensions.”
Britain’s new Left wing Labour Party government, already mired in scandal and accusations of incompetence, also allowed Ukraine to use its Storm Shadow missiles against targets in Russia.
Russia’s initial response, besides protest, was to fire the first intercontinental ballistic missile at Ukraine. Usually identified with nuclear weapons, this one delivered a massive conventional payload. It can carry 36 tons of munition and has a range of approximately 3,600 miles.
Ukraine has no defense against ICBM weapons.
The Biden administration also reversed a 2022 decision to limit use of US made anti-personnel “land mines” to only defensive positions on the Korean peninsula.
At the time, State Department official Stan Brown said that with the exception of South Korea the US would abide by the Ottawa Convention banning use of the weapons. He said “we would not assist, encourage, or induce anyone outside the context of the Korean peninsula to engage in any activity that would be prohibited by the convention.”
The United States has not used these weapons outside of Korea since 1991.
During the 2020 campaign, Biden called encouraging their use “reckless.”
The Biden administration at the time also singled out Russia for criticism of their use and lauded Ukraine for sticking to its treaty commitments to not use them.
Many have speculated that the moves come less as a response to the Korean deployment and more out of fear of Donald Trump’s plans to bring a negotiated end to the conflict – one that would almost certainly see Ukraine forced to give up the historically Russian Crimea and areas along the Ukraine-Russia border with a majority Russian ethnic population.
Similarly, Dwight D. Eisenhower ran for president in part on a promise to end the Korean War. Instead of pushing for a US and South Korean victory once in office, as many expected, he forced a compromise solution and cease-fire that has served as the settlement to this day.
The Korean War started due to aggression from Communist North Korea, but cost much in terms of lives and destruction to the entire region. Eisenhower was also concerned about Red China’s direct support of North Korea through forces in the field and how the war could expand into a nuclear conflict.
The Biden Administration (though likely not Biden himself) has chosen to provoke a nuclear power whose government continues to enjoy support through allowing use of missiles with limited utility and land mines that the administration itself condemned two years ago.
It is also fascinating to see the party that warned Americans for decades against conflicts that could “lead to another Vietnam” immerse the US and the West in a struggle that could easily expand into another world war.
Yet there is a simple way to undermine Russia’s ability to continue the war using economic and non lethal means. Russia’s economy relies heavily on sales of oil and natural gas. Restrictions on the growth of production of each in the United States preserve Russia’s ability to fund their economy through its dominance of the European market.
Instead of offering a second-hand military challenge to a Great Power, simply turn on the taps and encourage more direct sales of natural gas and oil to Europe. The US can already produce and sell at prices more cheaply than Russia there. With the hysterical “climate” movement sidelined in the US by the Trump victory, driving down prices of energy and pushing Russia out of traditional markets can be a point of leverage that does not end in world war.
And it will improve the economy of West Virginia in particular and the United States as a whole.